SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

John Bercow: I wish to make a short statement to the House.
A fortnight ago, the House of Commons Commission endorsed a proposition upon which I confess that I am myself very keen—having, indeed, originally suggested it myself—that a wider range of less senior procedural Clerks should have an opportunity to sit at the Table alongside more experienced colleagues to familiarise themselves with Chamber practice and procedure. At the same time, the Commission endorsed a proposition from the Clerk of the House, reflecting the overwhelming view of his colleagues, that Clerks should no longer wear wigs at the Table in the Chamber. They will  also cease to wear court dress, but they will continue to wear gowns, so as to be distinguishable as experts in parliamentary procedure—not lawyers, and certainly not Members. Details are in a letter from the Clerk of the House to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, which is available on the Committee’s website and in the Vote Office.
Colleagues will be pleased to learn that this change will in the longer term save money. It will, I believe, be welcomed by those Clerks who serve or look forward to serving at the Table, and it will moreover, in my view—which I recognise may not be universally shared—convey to the public a marginally less stuffy and forbidding image of this Chamber at work. The new regime will start soon after we return from the short February recess.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

EDUCATION

John Bercow: I call Karen Buck. Not here. Well, one person who is here—I can see that very clearly, to my great satisfaction—is the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).

THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS ASKED—

Education Funding: West Sussex

Nicholas Soames: What her plans are for education funding in West Sussex.

Justine Greening: We are replacing the historical postcode lottery in school funding with a proper, transparent national funding formula that is fair whereby funding will be allocated to schools based on the needs of pupils. Compared with the alternative of the current postcode-lottery approach, the fairer funding proposals on which we are consulting would mean a £14.6 million annual increase in funding to local West Sussex schools.

Nicholas Soames: I am sorry, Mr Speaker; you caught me without my wig.
Almost all the 286 schools in West Sussex find their budgets under extreme strain, so they welcome these new developments, but as West Sussex is already one of the lowest funded of all the shire counties, will my right hon. Friend look very carefully in particular at the budgets of small rural schools, which find themselves unfortunately and unfavourably treated?

Justine Greening: Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the second phase of the consultation on the introduction of the national funding formula. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally reach a settlement on fair funding that really works. I know that he and many other colleagues will have their views about how they want the formula to work, and he is right to raise them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I listened carefully to the response from the Secretary of State, who has not broadened the matter, and therefore the question appertains exclusively to West Sussex.

Chris Matheson: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s Chester constituency is a considerable distance from West Sussex, but if, and only if, his question focuses exclusively upon West Sussex—

Chris Matheson: Almost exclusively, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: No, exclusively. Get in there, man.

Chris Matheson: West Sussex’s education funding has increased by 1.9%—I am very pleased to hear that—but other areas close to West Sussex will have received cuts of up to 1.3%, so why is West Sussex being treated so much more generously?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a very fine man, but I am not sure that he would triumph if he appeared on “Just a Minute”.

Justine Greening: I recognise that the funding formula means that schools will receive different settlements from the ones that they have had in the past. We are trying to ensure that every single child, wherever they are growing up in England, gets the same amount of funding, but that there is then a top-up in relation to additional needs, such as in respect of deprivation, which has been based on out-of-date data up until now, or indeed additional funding for low prior attainment.

Desmond Swayne: Will the impact of the new formula in West Sussex dis-proportionately disadvantage rural primary schools in the way that it will elsewhere?

Justine Greening: The introduction of the formula leads to different effects in different parts of the country. Obviously, we are putting in place a fair funding formula, but it has to work for all schools. We are having the second phase of the consultation to try to ensure that we get this right. We have particularly focused on helping small rural schools by relating an element of the formula to sparsity. There is also a lump-sum element. I am interested to hear all colleagues’ views in the consultation.

Angela Rayner: The Secretary of State’s answers so far will give no comfort to schools in West Sussex, which will have had an 8% reduction by 2019, or anywhere else that is facing real-terms funding cuts. Does she stand by her party’s manifesto pledge that every school in Britain, including every school in West Sussex, will receive a real-terms spending increase per pupil during this Parliament?

Justine Greening: As ever, the hon. Lady is not clear about whether she even supports the concept of fair funding. I would have thought that all MPs would want to see all children getting fair schools funding across   the board. A record amount of money is going into our schools budget and we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. There is record funding, but it is important that we ensure, through the fair funding formula, that it is distributed fairly.

National Funding Formula: Devon

Ben Bradshaw: What representations she has received on the effect of the proposed funding formula on schools in Devon; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Gibb: We received 6,000 responses to the first stage of the consultation on the national funding formula, which sets out the principles and factors to be used in the formula. We continue to receive representations on  the second stage of the consultation, which closes on 22 March. Our proposals for funding reform will mean that schools will, for the first time, receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget, addressing the anachronistic unfair funding system that has been in place since 2005.

Ben Bradshaw: Exeter schools already suffer a double whammy—they are in one of the lowest funded counties in England, and they have to subsidise the high cost of providing school transport and keeping open small rural schools—yet the new funding formula will actually make them worse off. How will the Minister explain that to my constituents and to the schools themselves?

Nick Gibb: In Devon, as a result of the new funding formula and on the basis of the figures for 2016-17, school funding would rise from £377.2 million to £378.7 million, an increase of 0.4%. In the right hon. Gentleman’s Exeter constituency, there will be no overall change in the level of funding, although there will of course be changes between schools. Whenever we introduce a new national formula and illustrate it on the basis of the current year’s figures—in this case, 2016-17—some schools will inevitably gain and others will lose. Overall, 54% of schools across the country will gain under the new national funding formula.

Hugo Swire: If these proposals are adopted, the historically underfunded constituency of East Devon will have 15 primary schools that gain while 20 lose out, and all our secondary schools will lose out. That is clearly neither fair nor acceptable. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and other Devon MPs so that we can make our point yet again?

Nick Gibb: I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend. I think that the Secretary of State has already met Devon MPs to discuss this matter, but I am sure that she will do so again.
I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire). There is a small fall in overall funding in his constituency, although 40% of schools in East Devon will see a rise in income on the basis of the new formula. The new funding formula attaches a higher value to deprivation than Devon’s local formula, so schools in Devon with a low proportion of pupils from a disadvantaged background or with low prior attainment do less well under the  national formula. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to make representations through the consultation, which closes on 22 March.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. By his earlier reference to the situation “across the country”, the Minister extended the question beyond Devon, allowing other would-be contributors to ask a question.

Tracy Brabin: The head of one of my local academy trusts tells me that his school will lose more than 2.5% of its overall budget as a result of the national funding formula alone. That figure is higher than the 1.5% cap promised by the Government. Does the Minister share the trust’s view that the cuts will have the biggest impact on deprived and vulnerable children? If so, what are the Government doing?

Nick Gibb: No, I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. We aggregated all the local funding formulae across the 150 local authorities and looked at the level of deprivation. We are allocating 9.5% of the national funding formula to deprivation, which is broadly in line with the existing position. We have also increased the amount in the funding formula that goes to children who start school behind. The scheme is deliberately designed to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are falling behind. I would have thought that the hon. Lady, representing the constituency that she does, would support a fairer funding system that helps those particular children.

Neil Parish: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), Devon’s small rural schools and the long distances that our pupils have to travel mean that we need more funding. While I welcome fairer funding, we are starting a long way behind.

Nick Gibb: I accept my hon. Friend’s comments. Schools in his constituency will gain about £300,000 of funding overall—a 0.6% increase. On the basis of illustrative figures for 2016-17, 70.6% of schools in his constituency will actually gain funding, compared with 29% that will lose a small amount.

Vicky Foxcroft: By 2020, the national funding formula will lead to a loss of £339 for every primary pupil and £477 for every secondary pupil. In my constituency, the figures are even higher, with primary schools losing £558 per pupil and secondary schools losing £717 per pupil. How can the Minister justify that when the child poverty level in my constituency is 36%?

Nick Gibb: Because the hon. Lady’s constituency will remain one of the highest-funded areas of the country. She is right that the per pupil funding rate in Lewisham, Deptford will fall from £5,708 to £5,550 as a result of the national funding formula, but that is still one of the highest in the country. The prosperity of London as a whole has increased over the past 10 years, with the proportion of children on free school meals falling from 27% to 18%, but it still has some of the highest levels of  deprivation. That is why, under the new national funding formula, London’s funding remains 30% higher than the national average.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I welcome the principle of the new national funding formula, but one third of schools in North Devon look set to lose funding under the indicative figures. Will the Minister continue to listen carefully to our representations? Will he also confirm whether the indicative figures are just that and that they could be subject to some revision?

Nick Gibb: Yes, of course. The consultation is genuine and has been extended for two weeks until 22 March so that we can hear representations from my hon. Friend, from other Members and from members of the public.

Angela Rayner: Will the Minister confirm last week’s report that the Secretary of State handed back to the Treasury £384 million that was earmarked for school improvement? Does he agree with the estimate of London Councils that it would take £335 million to ensure that no school loses out under the new funding formula?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady should know how negotiations with the Treasury work. We negotiated a good agreement with the Treasury and have protected core school funding in real terms. We are spending £40 billion a year on school funding—a record high figure—and that is set to rise, as pupil numbers rise over the next two years, to £42 billion by 2019-20. The figure that she refers to is about the cost of academisation. That proposal continues, but we are not targeting the same timetable that was agreed in the previous White Paper.

Kevin Foster: The Minister will be aware that Torbay’s schools benefit overall from the proposals, yet the grammar schools that serve a large swathe of south Devon do not. I thank him for his courtesy in recently meeting the heads of those schools. Will he update me on when we are likely to receive a detailed response to the points we raised?

Nick Gibb: As I said at the meeting, which I enjoyed very much, schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency will gain £1.2 million of extra funding under the new national funding formula, which amounts to an increase of 2.4%. The funding of 78% of schools in his constituency will increase as a result of the formula. I listened carefully to the representations that he and headteachers in his constituency made, and I will respond to him shortly.

Liz Kendall: The Minister said earlier that it will be schools with fewer deprived pupils and better prior attainment that are likely to lose out under his proposals, but in my constituency that is simply wrong. The nine schools that will have their funding cut are in the most deprived parts of the city where, on average, children start school 20 months behind where they should be in their development. Something has gone very badly wrong with his plans. Will he look again and explain to me and the teachers in my constituency why the kids who need help the most are going to lose out?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady will have looked at the consultation document and seen that a very high proportion of the national funding formula is allocated on the basis of disadvantage—it is based on pupils’ low prior attainment and things such as English as an additional language. The difference is that we are basing the national funding formula on today’s data, not the data as they were in 2005. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place something that the Labour party neglected to do: a fair national funding formula that is based on a clear set of factors and principles, and on up-to-date data.

Nusrat Ghani: In East Sussex, funding per pupil is £193 lower than the national average. What more can be done for my schools in Wealden, which are both small and rural?

Nick Gibb: We have ensured that sparsity is an important factor in the national funding formula and we are increasing funding for the sparsity element from £15 million to £27 million across the system. East Sussex sees an increase in its funding overall and my hon. Friend should welcome this much fairer system. It is fairer to schools in East Sussex and right across the country.

Diana R. Johnson: Hull is the 19th most deprived area of the country. In November, when I asked the Secretary of State about the £13 million projected cut to Hull’s school budgets by 2020, she denied it. The figures have now been crunched, and actually it is a £13.2 million reduction in budgets by 2020. What should I say to the heads of the schools in my constituency?

Nick Gibb: I suggest that the hon. Lady tells schools in Hull that, because of the way in which the new national funding formula addresses historical anachronisms and because of our focus on tackling deprivation, Hull’s school funding under the formula rises from £157 million to £161.7 million, which is an increase of some 3%. In her constituency of Kingston upon Hull North, funding rises by £1.4 million, with 83% of her schools seeing an increase in funding on the basis of 2016-17 figures.

National Funding Formula: Hampshire

Ranil Jayawardena: What assessment she has made of the effect of the proposed national funding formula on schools in Hampshire.

Justine Greening: As we have been hearing, the Government want a fairer approach. It is clear that the Labour party supports the status quo of an unfair, un-transparent, outdated postcode-lottery approach to how schools funding is distributed. For Hampshire, this fairer alternative will mean extra money: £9 million of extra money every year for high-needs children in local Hampshire schools, in fact, and a further £4.5 million every year for Hampshire schools overall on top of that. My hon. Friend’s local schools  in North East Hampshire will gain more than £1 million a year.

Ranil Jayawardena: I thank the Secretary of State for those figures, which are most welcome—indeed, the county council leader said that to me the other day—but living costs are also high in Hampshire, especially in North East Hampshire. Will she consider tweaking the formula so that it includes a cost-neutral cost of living allowance, given that the average house price in my patch is £375,000, but house prices just over the border, where there is a London allowance, are £50,000 cheaper?

Justine Greening: I am sure my hon. Friend will want to make those points as part of the consultation that is under way, but as he will be aware, our formula looks at area cost adjustments that take into account variations in not only the general labour market but specifically the teaching labour markets. Such an approach is designed to compensate schools that face higher wage costs. We have a measure that is based on salaries, which we think is the best way, but as I said, this is a consultation and I am sure he will want to put the point he makes into it.

John Bercow: It is quite a long way over the border to Liverpool, Wavertree, but there we go. I call Luciana Berger.

Luciana Berger: During these questions, we seem to be dealing with some “alternative facts”. According to the details I have in front of me, Liverpool schools are set to lose £3.6 million. I visited a primary school in Picton in my constituency—Picton is one of the most deprived wards in the country—that is going to lose more than 10% of its budget; we are talking about more than £100,000 for some of the most deprived children in this country. Can the Government please explain to Labour Members, and to the whole House, exactly what is going on and why they seem to be presenting something very different from what our schools are having to contend with in reality?

Justine Greening: I think it is because we are using accurate data. We end up in a straightforward place. First, do we believe that our children should be funded fairly during their time in school, wherever in the country they are growing up? Secondly, do we believe that deprivation funding should be based on up-to-date data? If the Labour party wants an approach that is unfair and based on out-of-date data, I will be happy to see its submissions in the consultation.

National Funding Formula

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What progress her Department is making on the proposed national funding formula for schools.

Nick Gibb: Our proposals for funding reform mean that schools and local authority areas would, for the first time, receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget, so that they can give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. The consultation on the second stage runs until 22 March. In Gloucestershire, funding would rise from £331.5 million to £334 million because of the national funding formula, on the basis of the 2016-17 figures, which is a rise of 0.8%.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is well aware that Gloucestershire has suffered for years under the current system; there is a 61% disparity between the top-funded primary schools and the bottom-funded primary schools. Will he look carefully at the unfair proposals he has brought forward in the funding formula, because they double-count items such as deprivation, low attainment and English as a first language, and it is not fair on rural schools?

Nick Gibb: I have listened very carefully to the representations my hon. Friend makes, both today and in the various meetings we have held. The Government’s proposals for funding reform seek to balance carefully the differing needs of rural and urban schools. Schools in the historically lowest-funded areas would gain, on average, about 3.6% under the national funding formula; 676 small and remote rural schools would also benefit from sparsity funding for the first time; and, nationally, small rural schools, as a group, would gain 1.3% on average, with primary schools in sparse areas gaining some 5.3% on average. In his constituency, 64% of the schools would gain funding under the proposals, based on applying the formula to the current year’s figures.

Melanie Onn: Under the new funding proposals, Ormiston South Parade academy in my constituency will see a 2.8% reduction in its budget, yet The Times reported last week that Ormiston Academies Trust is seeking to hire a public relations agency for up to £900,000 to deal with reputational management. Does the Minister think that parents will consider that a good use of Government funding or that that money should be spent on the school?

Nick Gibb: Academies face much greater financial scrutiny than local authority schools. They have to produce annual audited accounts, whereas local authority schools do not, and the Education Funding Agency scrutinises closely, on a quarterly basis, the funding and expenditure of academies and multi-academy trusts.

David Amess: I appreciate the challenge that my right hon. Friend faces in finding a fairer funding formula and I appreciate that this is a consultation period, but does he realise that if these changes were to go ahead as suggested, every school in Southend would lose out? I certainly cannot support that.

Nick Gibb: The new funding formula is designed to ensure that funding is properly matched to need. It uses up-to-date data so that children who face entrenched barriers to their education receive the teaching and support that they need. I recognise that my hon. Friend will be disappointed by the impact of the proposals, on the basis of illustrative figures for the 2016-17 year for schools in Southend. As he knows, we are conducting a full consultation on the formula’s details, and I know he will continue to make his views known through that process.

Angela Rayner: To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) about funding for academies, what will the Minister do to help schools such as the Whitehaven academy in Cumbria, which has been left  with a crumbling building after his Government axed its capital funding, and where the teachers are now prevented from photocopying to save money? Will the Government help the pupils and parents who need support?

Nick Gibb: It is nice to hear from the hon. Lady for the third time. We are spending record amounts on capital: £23 billion has been allocated for capital spending over this spending review period. We created 600,000 more school places in the previous Parliament, and we are committed to creating another 600,000 in this Parliament. We are spending £40 billion a year on revenue funding for schools—a record amount that over the next two years will rise, as pupil numbers rise, to £42 billion. None of that would be possible if we relied on the Labour party to oversee the economy. We have a strong economy and we are rescuing it from the fiasco of the previous Labour Government.

Social Mobility

Michelle Donelan: What steps her Department is taking to improve social mobility through education.

Ben Howlett: What steps her Department is taking to improve social mobility through education.

Justine Greening: We want to see an education system that works for everyone and that drives social mobility by breaking the link between a person’s background and where they get to in life. We are delivering more good school places; strengthening the teaching profession; investing in and improving careers education; transforming technical education and apprenticeships; opening up access to universities; and focusing effort on areas of the country with the greatest challenges and the fewest opportunities, through opportunity areas.

Michelle Donelan: Currently, the pupil premium is a very limited measure—for instance, children who are young carers are not recognised. In addition, it stops at 16, despite some form of education being compulsory until 18. Will the Minister therefore consider a review of the pupil premium to achieve true social mobility?

Justine Greening: The pupil premium is worth £2.5 billion this year, and it is helping to level the playing field for  2 million disadvantaged children, including many young carers and children with mental health problems. We are also looking at the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report and, indeed, our own DFE research on the lives of young carers in England, as part of the cross-Government carers strategy that is being reviewed and developed. On the point about age, the national funding formula for 16 to 19-year-olds provides extra funding for disadvantaged students—around £540 million this year.

Ben Howlett: I welcomed the Government’s “Schools that work for everyone” Green Paper—probably as much as the Secretary of State enjoyed reading my lengthy response to it. It showed the Government’s  commitment to ensuring that all pupils have the best chance of accessing a good education.When will the draft be published?

Justine Greening: I very much appreciated my hon. Friend’s submission to that consultation. We received several thousand submissions, which we are now going through. We will respond in the spring.

Lucy Powell: I noticed that the Secretary of State did not mention grammar schools in her answers to the previous questions about social mobility. Is that perhaps because in seven out of 10 grammar schools, all the free-school-meals children could fit in one classroom? Sir William Borlase’s grammar school, which I understand is set to be the first to open a new school, has just three children on free school meals. Does she think that reflects true social mobility? Are those numbers acceptable, and if not, what is she doing about it?

Justine Greening: We have been clear that we want to see existing grammars take more free-school-meal and disadvantaged children. The right way to go about getting no progress is to have no consultation and no policy development in this area, which is apparently the Labour party’s position.

Rosie Cooper: If the Department for Education is as committed to social mobility through education as it claims, will the Secretary of State explain why cuts to the early years funding formula and to local authorities have actually weakened outstanding early years education, which is the foundation of social mobility?

Justine Greening: Record levels of funding are going into early years. We are now extending the 15 hours of free childcare to 30. It is simply wrong to characterise this Government as doing anything other than pumping record amounts of money into both early years and indeed the school system.

School Funding: Rural Areas

Daniel Kawczynski: What progress the Government are making on ensuring that school funding is fairly distributed in rural areas.

Maria Caulfield: What support the Government plan to provide for small rural schools as a result of the proposed national funding formula.

Nick Gibb: Under the proposed formula, small rural schools will gain an average of 1.3% in funding, on the basis of the illustrative figures. We have also confirmed that the national funding formula will include a sparsity factor. That will particularly target funding on small and remote schools, which we know play an important role in our local communities. On average, small schools serving such communities would gain 3.3%, and small primary schools 5.3%.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that answer. Under these proposals, some Shrewsbury schools will benefit and others will lose. Overall as a country, we   still see the extraordinary situation in which, on average, Shropshire pupils can get as little as half that of inner-city children. How can he justify parts of the United Kingdom continuing to get almost double what we get in Shropshire?

Nick Gibb: In Shropshire as a whole, school funding rises from £151.7 million to £153.2 million as a result of the national funding formula based on the illustrative figures. That is a rise of some 0.9%. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, schools as a group will see an additional £100,000 of extra funding.

Maria Caulfield: Given that small rural schools in East Sussex are set to lose funding under the fairer funding formula, will the Minister review the need for those maintained schools to pay the apprenticeship levy, which adds to their costs, especially as fewer than half of the stand-alone academies pay that levy?

Nick Gibb: The apprenticeship levy is an important policy, as my hon. Friend will know. It is designed to ensure that we have the skills that are needed for our economy. The levy can be used to fund training and professional development in schools, and we will provide schools with detailed information on how the levy will work for them and how they can make the most of available apprenticeships.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the help in funding for rural schools not represent the opposite of addressing the need that I raised in a recent debate—disappointingly, the Minister did not even mention it when summing up the debate—for areas that have a high influx of additional pupils during the school year? I estimate that next year something like 600 school places in Slough will get zero funding, because, despite his talking about up-to-date deprivation numbers, he is not working his funding formula on up-to-date pupil numbers.

Nick Gibb: The formula does contain an element for growth. We also responded to the representations on mobility made by the right hon. Lady’s colleague, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). When pupils join a school part way through the year, that will be factored in. I would have expected her to welcome both those changes to the funding formula.

Mike Kane: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) had hastily to delete a tweet this week that showed that the national debt had exploded on this Government’s watch. Therefore, the sparsity formula, which was to save rural schools everywhere, has become the paucity formula. Should the Minister not tell the House that the key issue facing schools up to 2020 is  the £3 billion-worth of cuts coming down the line for every school in the country?

Nick Gibb: Funding is increasing to £42 billion by the end of this spending review period. We are increasing the amount of money allocated for sparsity from £15 million under the current formula to £27 million. The hon. Gentleman talks about debt, but, since 2010, we have had to face the problem of tackling the historic budget deficit inherited from the last Labour Government because of their poor stewardship of the public finances. Tackling  that debt and that deficit has enabled us to have a strong economy with growing employment and greater opportunities for young people when they leave school.

Apprenticeships

Rishi Sunak: What steps the Government are taking to encourage more  16 to 18-year-olds to take up apprenticeships.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in 2015-16, 131,400 under-19 apprentices climbed up the ladder of opportunity to get the skills and jobs that they need for the future. We are investing millions in supporting providers and employers to employ apprentices. We also have the Get In Go Far campaign, which is working incredibly well, and we are investing £90 million in careers guidance, including in the Careers and Enterprise Company.

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement of progress. Does he agree that a UCAS system for apprenticeships could improve the status of apprenticeships, make it easier for businesses and students to connect with each other, and end the classroom divide between those applying to university and those applying for technical education?

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the UCAS issue. He is absolutely right. We are looking very hard at this, and we announced it in our industrial strategy. We want to ensure that we give technical education students and apprentices clear information with a platform similar to UCAS. We are looking at how we can ensure that it works to help to address the skills deficit and to help the socially disadvantaged.

Nicholas Dakin: Is it not time to place a duty on schools to allow colleges and other providers of post-16 education, including apprenticeships, access to pupils so that those pupils are fully aware of the options available to them?

Robert Halfon: As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I recently visited degree apprentices at Gateshead College whose own school refused them a visit in order to talk about apprenticeships, skills and technical education. We are doing a lot of work to ensure that careers guidance in schools properly reflects the options available. We have introduced legislation and we are looking to do more to ensure that students are offered skills and apprenticeships.

Angela Watkinson: Would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Havering College of Further and Higher Education on its excellent five-week railway skills course from which 85% of students are moving on to apprenticeships in an area where there is a great skills shortage? Would he agree that a five-week course is an ideal way of encouraging less academic students to remain in education?

Robert Halfon: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place. Not only do I offer my huge congratulations to Havering College; I would be pleased to visit with my hon. Friend.

Gordon Marsden: The Minister quoted the statistics for 2015-16, but the proportion of apprenticeships for under 19-year-olds, compared with those for older apprentices was basically stagnant at just 26% compared with 25.2% the previous year: only one in four of all apprenticeships. The latest stats—for the first quarter—show that numbers for 16 to 18-year-olds are getting worse, with 58,190 compared with 63,200 the previous year, which is a drop of 8%. With the head of engineering training provider JTL saying that Government funding changes could cut its apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-old by two thirds, and thousands of youngsters blocked from getting apprenticeships by being on the treadmill of GCSE English and maths resits that only one in four of them passes, where is the Government’s beef for 16 to 18-year-olds, instead of motherhood and apple pie?

Robert Halfon: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He often does not see the apprentice wood for the apprentice trees. We now have the highest number of apprenticeships on record in our island’s history at 899,000, with more than 780,000 apprenticeship starts since May 2015. We are investing millions in ensuring that employers and providers hire apprentices. We have a record to be proud of.

John Bercow: We need to speed up.

Student Immigration

Alan Brown: What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on the Government’s student immigration policy.

Jo Johnson: Department for Education officials meet regularly with their counterparts from the Home Office to discuss a range of issues including student immigration policy. Let me be clear that the Government value the contribution that international students make to the UK’s excellent higher education sector, both economically and culturally. That is why we have no plans to limit the number of genuine international students who can come here to study.

Alan Brown: If the Government really value international students, I suggest they reappraise the need for a post-study work visa, which would allow students to come here, integrate into communities and bring value to their campuses and communities. When will the Government revisit that?

Jo Johnson: The UK has an excellent post-study work offer. Students can switch into a number of other visa routes to take up work after their studies. About 6,000 switched to a tier 2 skilled worker visa in 2015, and there is no cap on the number who may make  that switch.

Alex Chalk: Higher education is one of the United Kingdom’s greatest exports, and the Government are promoting it brilliantly. Do the Government think that, as we move forward post-Brexit, we should look to take student numbers outside the immigration figures?

Jo Johnson: The key thing is that, whether or not they are in those figures, there is no limit on the number of international students who can come here to study. The UK is the best place in the world to get a higher education, and we are delighted that, for the last six years, over 170,000 international students have come to study in the UK.

Gavin Newlands: Recent UCAS figures show that the number of EU students applying to Scottish universities has already fallen by 5%. The University of the West of Scotland has a new global reach strategy that aims to grow the number of international students attending UWS. Will the Minister explain to the university what it should do to achieve that goal despite the Brexit barriers the Government are putting in its way?

Jo Johnson: The UK is immensely successful at attracting international students. We are second in the world in terms of our market share, behind only the United States. We continue to extend a warm welcome, and we wish that more international students would come.

Carol Monaghan: Scottish universities, of course, were not included in the post-study work pilot. The Scottish Parliament’s Europe committee has today published a report calling for Scotland to have a differing immigration system; this is the third parliamentary report calling for that. Will the Minister now urge the Home Secretary to listen and include Scottish institutions in the post-study work scheme?

Jo Johnson: Scottish institutions are successful in attracting international students, and they are also successful in seeing those students switch into post-study work. It is important to note that the number switching into work after study is increasing: it was at 6,000 last year—up from 5,000 the year before and 4,000 the year before that.

Carol Monaghan: Being considered an international student post-Brexit will affect whether EU students choose to come to the UK, and that will have a major impact on university funding. What discussion has the Minister had with the Home Secretary on the immigration status of EU students post-Brexit?

Jo Johnson: These questions will be considered in the context of the broader discussions relating to our withdrawal from the European Union.

Education Provision: Northamptonshire

Philip Hollobone: What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of education provision in Northamptonshire; and what steps she plans to take to improve that provision.

Nick Gibb: We are concerned that the quality of education in too many Northamptonshire schools is not good enough, especially for disadvantaged pupils. We are using new powers to tackle inadequate schools and to move them into strong multi-academy trusts. We are also working with the local authority, teaching schools and academy trusts to ensure that schools are receiving appropriate support to help them improve.

Philip Hollobone: Educational attainment in Northamptonshire, sadly, is still below the national average. What is the single most important thing the local education authority should be doing to raise standards?

Nick Gibb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in seeking to raise standards in Northamptonshire schools. In October, together with hon. Friends representing Northamptonshire constituencies, we met the director of children’s services at Northamptonshire County Council to discuss academic standards in Northamptonshire schools. That included discussions about standards in phonics, which I would say is the single most important issue; key stage 2 SATs in reading and maths; GCSE results; and the EBacc. I have taken a close interest in the schools in my hon. Friend’s county, and we are meeting again in April to assess progress.

Peter Bone: Unfortunately, the Minister is absolutely right. Sir Christopher Hatton school in my constituency is outstanding, but we have two inadequate schools—Rushden and the Wrenn—and the Minister will shortly meet me and the chief executive of the Hatton Academies Trust. Does he agree that local academy trusts also have an important role to play in solving the problem with Northamptonshire’s education?

Nick Gibb: Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. Collaboration between schools, particularly in local multi-academy trusts, is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that we spread best practice and that schools in a multi-academy trust help one another to raise aspirations and the standard of academic education our children receive.

Pupils from Disadvantaged Backgrounds

Justin Tomlinson: What steps the Government are taking to increase educational opportunity for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Edward Timpson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House in December, increasing education opportunity for disadvantaged pupils underpins our commitment to make sure our country works for everyone. Through the pupil premium, worth £2.5 billion this year, we are narrowing the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. In 2016-17, over £8.8 million of this funding was allocated to schools in Swindon.

Justin Tomlinson: It was a great pleasure to welcome the School Standards Minister to Swindon Academy—a school with a predominantly deprived catchment area, a high proportion of free school meals, and, crucially, surplus places. Its decision to introduce a grammar  scheme in conjunction with Marlborough College has given every student, regardless of background, an opportunity to opt into an academically rigorous curriculum. Will the Minister share this best practice?

Edward Timpson: My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards just reminded me of how impressed he was on that visit by the steps that that school is taking to provide its pupils with a rigorous academic curriculum. By trusting school leaders like those in Swindon, we are enabling them to use their unparalleled knowledge of their pupils to create new, tailor-made ways of ensuring that every child can academically succeed.

Steve McCabe: With regard to disadvantage, the Government are about to close Baverstock Academy in my constituency. They will not say what that costs or where the pupils will go, and will not explain the inaccurate travel and future demand data. The Secretary of State will not even respond to my request for a meeting, although I am told she has got time for a photo op elsewhere in Birmingham, where she will not be meeting Baverstock parents. Are you at all surprised, Mr Speaker, that when it comes to disadvantage my constituents have one word for Government education policy—betrayal?

Edward Timpson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Baverstock Academy went into special measures in September 2014. The Department intervened swiftly to challenge the academy’s senior leadership team, and monitored attainment and progress closely. Throughout 2016, the regional schools commissioner sought a new sponsor for the school, but in November 2016 the Ofsted inspector confirmed that the school remains in special measures. The hon. Gentleman is right to continue to be worried about the schools in his constituency: so are we, and we will continue to do what we can to make sure that we turn this around.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: One last question—the voice of Luton North, Mr Kelvin Hopkins.

Sixth-form Education

Kelvin Hopkins: What comparative assessment she has made of the sixth-form education system in England and education systems in other countries.

Robert Halfon: Education and training in England are widely respected, but we are determined to make further improvements to make sure that 16 to 19-year-olds are ready for the demands of the workplace. We are reforming academic and technical education for over-16s, and we are learning from the best of international systems.

Kelvin Hopkins: Why are sixth-formers in England funded to receive only half the tuition time and support provided to sixth-formers in Shanghai, Singapore and other leading education systems?

Robert Halfon: I am proud that we have equalised funding between sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, and that we have protected the base rate of spending for FE students and will be spending £7 billion this year on further education. We have funding pressures, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but we are doing everything we can to invest in our skills and education.

Topical Questions

Sheryll Murray: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: The recent release of school performance statistics confirmed that the hard work of teachers and pupils across the country is leading to higher standards in our schools. Last month I announced a further six opportunity areas aimed at tackling the challenges for young people from early years right through to the world of work. When I announced the first lot of opportunity areas in October, I also made it clear that building a country for everyone means better options for the more than half of our young people who do not choose to go to university. That is why technical education is at the heart of the industrial strategy that the Government published last month. We are determined to create a gold-standard technical route so that the young people who choose to pursue it can get the skills that we, and our economy, need to succeed.

Sheryll Murray: I welcome the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. Lantoom Quarry in my constituency is a leading provider of high-quality apprenticeships leading to permanent full-time employment in many cases. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that aligning further education and training policy with the needs of employers remains a priority?

Justine Greening: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, putting the needs of employers first is at the heart of our apprenticeship reforms. That includes introducing employer-designed standards that test whether an apprentice has the skills, the behaviours and the knowledge that employers need.

Emma Lewell-Buck: This Government allowed two local authorities rated “good” for children’s services to be granted exemptions from statutory guidance, even extending these exemptions when there was no evidence of improvement. Ofsted has since rated them both “inadequate”, finding that for too long children have been left at risk and are suffering harm. Despite growing evidence of the dangers of these opt-out practices, the Secretary of State is determined to push through massive deregulation in the Children and Social Work Bill, which will allow local authorities to opt out of not just guidance but vast swathes of primary and secondary child protection legislation. Why does she think it is okay to experiment with the lives of vulnerable children?

Edward Timpson: We had a healthy debate about the power to innovate in Committee, but I am afraid  the hon. Lady still fails to grasp what we are trying to  achieve. Local authorities and social workers tell us that when well-intentioned legislation prevents them from doing what is best for young people, they want to be able to try new ways to ensure that the outcomes for children improve. That is why a whole raft of organisations, including the Children’s Society, have told us that they welcome the Government’s commitment to innovation in children’s social care and support the intention to allow local authorities to test new ways of working in a time-limited, safe, transparent and well-evaluated way. I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome that, rather than trying to concoct difficult arguments about the way forward that we want to take with the Bill. It is wrong, and she should follow the path that the profession wants to take.

Marcus Fysh: I welcome the recent proposal to re-weight the schools national funding formula, which goes some way towards redressing the historic injustice of underfunding in rural schools in Somerset. Although some of the schools in my constituency, such as Barwick and Buckland, are set to receive about 20% more in two years’ time, other rural primary schools such as Winsham seem to have been treated very differently. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to review these anomalies?

Nick Gibb: I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss school funding in Yeovil. Indeed, so efficient are our offices that that meeting is already in the diary for 27 February. I should remind him that in his constituency, school funding rises by some £2.8 million under the new national funding formula, and that 94% of the schools in his constituency will see a rise in funding.

Jess Phillips: In my constituency, 85% of children who attend an independent nursery do not have access to a qualified early years teacher. The proportion of our children in that situation is one of the highest in England, and it means that they are 10% less likely to be at the expected standards of early development by the age of five. The Minister has said that she wants to increase social mobility, so what effort is she making to do that in Birmingham, Yardley?

Caroline Dinenage: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that our early years workforce is one of our greatest assets. We will shortly be releasing a workforce strategy, which will outline how we want to improve what already exists. We need to help employers to attract, to retain and to develop their staff to deliver the very highest quality of early years provision.

John Bercow: Short questions and short answers, please.

Jeremy Quin: As part of the fair funding consultation, will the Secretary of State consider establishing a minimum level of funding per school?

Justine Greening: We have had representations from some low-funded authorities about whether their schools need a de minimis level of funding in circumstances in which few of their pupils bring with them additional needs funding. We are looking at that and all the other  concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have raised during the consultation process, which is why it is an extended one of 14 weeks.

Lucy Powell: Following investigations by the , two very serious allegations of financial mismanagement have come to light in two multi-academy trusts that operate in my constituency. One is £4.5 million in debt. In the other, lots of money has gone missing. The Minister for School Standards said earlier that the EFA does a good job of holding multi-academy trusts to account, but what more can be done to make sure that that money is recouped and those people are held to account?

Justine Greening: It is important that we have strong governance for multi-academy trusts, as the hon. Lady points out. I would also say that we need equally strong governance for local authority-maintained schools.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that Harrow is the most multiracial borough in the country. Can she explain to the people of Harrow why every secondary school bar one and every primary school in my borough will see a reduction in expenditure under her plans?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend will know that 22% of the schools in his borough will see an increase in funding, and per-pupil funding on average in Harrow remains high, at £4,792 per pupil. That is higher than in many local authority areas around the country.

John Bercow: Of topical length, please, Mr Greg Mulholland.

Greg Mulholland: Leeds is reviewing its support for transport to school for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and there is a risk that people over-16 may not get such funding. Will the Government commit to ensuring that all children in such a situation in the country get the funding they need for transport to school?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Gentleman will know that during the past few years we have been implementing the new special educational needs system. It is embedding well in many parts of the country, but there are still areas that we want to look at to make sure that every child is benefiting from the changes. I am happy to look at the issue that he raises and to meet him if he so wishes, so that we can try to make some progress.

Stephen Metcalfe: Following the focus provided by the recently launched industrial strategy, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that every child gets the kind of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—education that they will need in the future to access the undoubted opportunities that will exist?

Justine Greening: We have not only focused on maths and English, but we have in particular made sure that girls in school are taking STEM subjects like never before. That is absolutely vital if we are to have the skills  that British businesses need to help us to be successful in the future. I am delighted to say that A-level maths is now the most successful A-level, but we want that progress to continue and to have more STEM graduates in future years.

Chi Onwurah: Adult education can transform lives, address our skills gap and address technology change, yet the number of adult learners has fallen off a cliff and the industrial strategy does not even mention it. Can the Secretary of State have a word about that?

Robert Halfon: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that by 2020 we will be spending more on the adult education budget than at any time in our island’s history. We are investing in skills, with millions of pounds for the national colleges and the institutes of technology; we are investing in apprenticeships, with 377,000 over-19s in apprenticeships in the past year; and we are investing in adult education—that is exactly what we are doing.

Stephen McPartland: I am chairman of the all-party group on literacy. Today, with the National Literacy Trust, we are announcing figures showing that 86% of all English constituencies have at least one ward with significant literacy problems. Does the Minister agree that people not being able to read and write is not just an economic issue, but one of social justice?

Nick Gibb: I share my hon. Friend’s view about the primacy of reading and writing, which are fundamental to education and to social justice. That is why ensuring that children are taught to read using the method of systematic synthetic phonics—evidence from this country and around the world shows that it works—has been at the heart of our education reforms. As a result, the proportion of six-year-olds reaching the expected standard in the phonics check has risen from 58% in 2012 to 81% in 2016.

Karin Smyth: What does the Secretary of State say to my constituent Catherine Foster, who received funding in April 2015 for a health and social care diploma with a provider that has now gone into administration? She has no access to her portfolio and no qualification, but a mountain of debt. Will the Secretary of State look into this case and meet me to help Catherine and thousands of other students in this situation?

Robert Halfon: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am very happy to meet her. I know that the Skills Funding Agency is doing everything possible to make sure that anyone affected by such issues has alternative education provision. I have asked the SFA to offer every possible assistance as well.

Rebecca Pow: Will the Secretary of State provide me with an update on when the performance tables for 2019 will be released,   as it is very important for schools in Taunton Deane to be aware of them when advising year 9 pupils about which GCSEs to select?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this information. We are currently finalising the details of the technical and applied qualifications that will count in 2019 performance tables, and we will publish the list as soon as possible.

Rosie Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the university technical college bid in Doncaster is vital to improving skills and increasing apprenticeships? Will she, without delay, give the college the go-ahead, or meet the local chamber of commerce and local authority to explain the delay?

Justine Greening: I have had a chance to look around a number of UTCs during my time in this role, and many of them are producing an outstanding education that is very different from the education the young people who go to them might otherwise have had. I am well aware that Doncaster wants a response in relation to its UTC application—I very much welcome the backing that the right hon. Lady has given it—and we will confirm the decision shortly.

Chris Green: Too many people leave school without achieving the results they need, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the incredible work done by the British Army at the Pirbright and Catterick training camps in getting people who join those establishments without the necessary grades up to the right grade, and will he undertake to find out what can be learned from those places?

Nick Gibb: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the work of the Army training camps at Catterick and Pirbright to the attention of the House. The Army has a strong track record of delivering high-quality education and training. I would be delighted to discuss these issues further with him.

Lilian Greenwood: Sir Michael Wilshaw recently urged the Government to tackle the comparatively low standards in many northern and midlands secondary schools, and Nottingham’s education improvement board has identified teacher recruitment and retention as its No. 1 priority. How can the Secretary of State honestly believe that cutting the funding of every single school in my constituency will help them attract the best teachers and so raise standards among young people in some of our most deprived communities?

Justine Greening: The Government have put huge amounts of funding into the northern powerhouse strategy to help schools across the north to lift their standards. Part of that relates to improving teacher recruitment and retention. It is not just northern schools where we want to see progress; we want to see progress in midlands engine schools and—dare I say it—schools in the east of England.

INFORMAL EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Theresa May: Before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen as she marks her sapphire jubilee today. It is testimony to Her Majesty’s selfless devotion to the nation that she is marking becoming our first monarch to reign for sixty-five years not with any special celebration, but instead by getting on with the job to which she has dedicated her life. On behalf of the whole country, I am proud to offer Her Majesty our humble thanks for a lifetime of extraordinary service. Long may she continue to reign over us all.
Turning to last week’s informal European Council in Malta, Britain is leaving the European Union but we are not leaving Europe, and a global Britain that stands tall in the world will be a Britain that remains a good friend and ally to all our European partners. So at this summit we showed how Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe long after we have left the EU, in particular through our contribution to the challenge of managing mass migration; through our special relationship with America; and through the new and equal partnership that we want to build between the EU and an independent, self-governing, global Britain. Let me take each point in turn.
First, on migration, the discussion focused on the route from Libya across the central Mediterranean. As I have argued, we need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach, and that is exactly what the Council agreed. That includes working hard in support of an inclusive political settlement to stabilise Libya, which will help not only to tackle migration flows, but to counter terrorism. It means working to reduce the pull factors that encourage people to risk their lives and building the capacity of the Libyans to return migrants to their own shores, treat them with dignity and help them return home. It means looking beyond Libya and moving further upstream, including by urgently implementing the EU’s external investment plan to help create more opportunities in migrants’ home countries and by helping genuine refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It also means better distinguishing between economic migrants and refugees, swiftly returning those who have no right to remain and thereby sending out a deterrence message to others thinking of embarking on perilous journeys. The Council agreed action in all those areas.
Britain is already playing a leading role in the region and at the summit I announced further steps, including additional support for the Libyan coastguard and more than £30 million of new aid for the most vulnerable refugees across Greece, the Balkans, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan and Libya. Britain is also setting up an £8 million special protection fund to keep men, women and children in the Mediterranean region safe from trafficking, sexual violence and labour exploitation as part of our commitment to tackle modern slavery. The Council agreed with my call that we should do everything possible to deter this horrific crime, including by introducing tough penalties for those who trade in human misery and by working together to secure the necessary evidence for prosecutions that can put these criminals behind bars, where they belong.
Turning to America, I opened a discussion on engaging the new Administration, and I was able to relay the conversation I had with President Trump at the White House about the important history of co-operation between the United States and the countries of Europe. In particular, I confirmed that the President had declared his 100% commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of our security in the west. I also made it clear, however, that every country needed to share the burden and play its full part, meeting the NATO target of spending  2% on defence. It is only by investing properly in our defence that we can ensure we are properly equipped to keep our people safe.
I was also able to relay my discussions with President Trump on the importance of maintaining the sanctions regime on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, and I very much welcome the strong words last week from the new US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, in confirming America’s continued support for these sanctions.
Of course, there are some areas where we disagree with the approach of the new Administration, and we should be clear about those disagreements and about the values that underpin our response to the global challenges we face. I also argued at the Council, however, that we should engage patiently and constructively with America as a friend and ally—an ally that has helped to guarantee the longest period of peace that Europe has ever known. For we should be clear that the alternative of division and confrontation would only embolden those who would do us harm, wherever they may be.
Finally turning to Brexit, European leaders welcomed the clarity of the objectives we set out for the negotiation ahead. They warmly welcomed our ambition to build a new partnership between Britain and the EU that is in the interests of both sides. They also welcomed the recognition that we in Britain want to see a strong and successful EU, because that is in our interests and the interests of the whole world.
On the issue of acquired rights, the general view was that we should reach an agreement that applied equally to the other 27 member states and the UK, which is why we think a unilateral decision from the UK is not the right way forward. As I have said before, however, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society, and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker. We will therefore make securing a reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible, because that is in everyone’s interests.
Our European partners now want to get on with the negotiations. So do I, and so does this House, which last week voted by a majority of 384 in support of the Government triggering article 50. There are, of course, further stages for the Bill in Committee and in the other place, and it is right that this process should be completed properly, but the message is clear to all: this House has spoken, and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically expressed wishes of the British people. It is time to get on with leaving the EU and building an independent, self-governing, global Britain. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it, and I echo her sentiments towards Her Majesty. I wish her Majesty well at this auspicious time in her life and thank her for her service.
The Prime Minister has used this curiously named “informal” EU summit to press the EU’s NATO members to fulfil their defence expenditure requirements. The last Labour Government consistently spent over 2% on defence. The Tory Government’s cuts since 2010 have demoralised our armed forces, cut spending by 11% in the last Parliament and reduced the size of the Army from 82,000 to 77,000. As well as making these cuts, they have changed the way the 2% spending is calculated. Given that she is lecturing other countries, will she tell the House why her Government changed the accounting rules to include aspects of expenditure not previously included? The Defence Select Committee in 2015 noted that the Government were only meeting the 2% figure by including areas, such as pensions, not previously included. It went on to say that
“this ‘redefinition’ of defence expenditure undermines, to some extent, the credibility of the Government’s assertion that the 2% figure represents a…increase”.
To add to this disarray, this weekend, The Sunday Times uncovered a series of equipment failures and bungled procurement deals, including apparently ordering light tanks that are too big to fit in the aircraft that are supposed to be transporting them. This really does cast some doubt on the Government’s competence in this area, so perhaps it is not such a good idea to go lecturing other countries on defence spending and procurement.
Labour has long been concerned about poor planning and short-sightedness by the Ministry of Defence and long delays in delivering projects. The extent to which the MOD appears to have lost control of some of its biggest equipment projects is worrying, and it would be nice to know what action the Prime Minister is taking on this matter.
Earlier today, the Prime Minister had a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Did she make it clear to him that, as is often mentioned in this House and by the Prime Minister herself, there is continued opposition by the British Government to the illegal settlements being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Labour has been unequivocal about the fact that it is within this Government’s gift to guarantee the rights of EU citizens to remain in this country. There is no need to wait for negotiations to begin; the Government could do it now. This is not a question about Brexit; it is a question about human rights, democracy and decency towards people who have lived and worked in this country. Many families have had children born here, and I think we must guarantee their rights. Many of those people have been left in limbo, and are very deeply concerned and stressed. Did the Prime Minister discuss this issue with her European counterparts, and will she today provide those people with the clarity and assurances that they both need and, I believe, deserve?
We are clear that we accept the mandate of the British people to leave the European Union, but we will not accept this Government turning this country into a bargain basement tax haven on the shores of Europe.
Finally, we welcome the additional £30 million that the Government have committed to the refugee crisis across Europe. Last week at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the UK had resettled 10,000 refugees from Syria. According to the House of Commons Library, we have resettled less than half that figure—4,414. There is an ongoing and grave human tragedy that has resulted in more than 5,000 people drowning in the Mediterranean last year and 254 already this year, and we are only at the beginning of February.
I believe that we should also note the phenomenal commitment of the Government and people of Greece to the huge number of refugees in their country, and the difficulties they are having in supporting them. What conversations did she have with her Greek counterpart on this important matter? I also say to the Prime Minister that, even post- Brexit, this is an issue that will affect every country in Europe. It is the biggest humanitarian crisis that we have ever faced in the world, and we will need to co-ordinate as a continent to address this issue with all the humanity and resources that our collective values determine should be deployed towards it.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by referring to what I think he called the “curiously named” informal Council. It is the convention that at every new presidency—there are two new presidencies each year—the presidency holds an informal Council in which people are able to talk about a number of issues looking ahead to the formalities of the Council. There we are; that is what happens; and that is what we were doing in Valletta.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my meeting earlier today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I have to say that this was not a subject for discussion  at the European Union Council last week. However,  I have made the UK Government’s position on settlements clear, and I continued to do that today.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of UK nationals. As he said, it is absolutely right that we value the contribution that EU citizens are making here in the United Kingdom—their contribution to our communities, our economy, our society, and, as I have said, to our public services—but I think it is also right that we ensure that the rights of UK citizens living in other European states are maintained. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with a number of European leaders about this issue that they think that it should be dealt with in the round as a matter of reciprocity, but, as was made plain by, for example, the conversations that I had with Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain, we are all very clear about the fact that we want to give reassurance to people as early as possible in the negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the issue of refugees, and about people drowning in the Mediterranean. Of course the loss of life that we have seen has been terrible, as is the continuing loss of life that we are seeing despite the best efforts of the United Kingdom: the Royal Navy and Border Force have been there, acting with others to protect and rescue people. That is why it is so important that we stop people making that perilous journey in the first place and risking their lives, and that is why the work that we discussed at the EU Council in Valletta on Friday is so important.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our relationship with Greece. We continue to support Greece: we have a number of experts providing support on the ground,  giving the Greeks real help with the task of dealing with the refugees. I made a commitment that we would want to continue to co-operate with our European partners on this issue after leaving the European Union, because it is indeed not confined to the European Union; it affects us as a whole, throughout Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of comments about defence. Indeed, he devoted a fair amount of his response to the whole question of defence. At one point, he said that the fact that we were spending 2% on defence cast doubt on the competence of the UK Government in matters relating to it. I think this is the same right hon. Gentleman who said that he wanted to send out our nuclear submarines without any missiles on them. You couldn’t make it up.

Kenneth Clarke: I think that, for most states, the main business of the Council was yet another attempt to tackle the problem of mass migration from the middle east and north Africa, which is destabilising the politics of every European country. Will my right hon. Friend confirm—in fact, I think she just has—that, as Prime Minister, she will play as active a part as she did when she was Home Secretary in working with the other European Union countries to tackle the problem? Otherwise we shall have a continuing problem of attempts to come to this country.
If we are going to start returning refugees to the coast of north Africa, may I ask whether any progress is being made in the efforts that my right hon. Friend was making when she was Home Secretary to find somewhere on the other side of the Mediterranean where Europeans can finance and organise reception centres and refugees and applicants can be processed in a civilised way, and where it can be ensured that only genuine asylum seekers are let into this country?

Theresa May: I can give my right hon. and learned Friend those reassurances. As he has said, this issue will continue to affect us, and to affect us all. It is not confined to the borders of the European Union. We will continue to co-operate with our European partners on this important matter while we remain in the EU and beyond.
Of course, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, one of the concerns about returning people to north Africa has related to the conditions to which they would be returned. That is why the EU has made efforts in Niger to establish some centres to try to ensure that people do not progress through to Libya and attempt to cross the Mediterranean, and it is also why we referred in the Council conclusions to our support for the Italian initiative. The Italians have worked with the Government of National Accord in Libya to secure an agreement that they will do some work there, in particular to ensure that people can be returned to suitable conditions, and we will support that.

Angus Robertson: May I begin by joining the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour party in extending to the Queen the best wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee? We wish her a very pleasant day with her family, and many further jubilees to come.
I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her short statement about what was the first European Union informal summit since she published her White Paper on Brexit. It was also the first meeting since she met colleagues in the Joint Ministerial Committee of the British-Irish Council, and, of course, the first since her visit to Dublin.
As we have already established, the Prime Minister wants no hard borders on these islands; she wants the free movement of peoples on these islands and the safeguarding and boosting of trade on these islands, and we on these Benches wholeheartedly support these aims. But given the great importance that the Prime Minister gives in the White Paper to the Union of the United Kingdom and what we are told is a partnership of equals, she will surely have briefed her European colleagues while she was in Malta about the progress of negotiations with the other Governments on these islands. So did she confirm that she will work with the Scottish Government to secure continuing membership of the European single market? Did she tell her European colleagues that we value EU citizens living in our country, that their presence will be guaranteed, and that she is prepared to learn the lessons from Canada, from Australia and from Switzerland, where it is perfectly possible to have different immigration priorities and policies within a unitary state? Did the Prime Minister remind European colleagues that in Scotland we voted by 62% to remain in the European Union and that only one Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency voted for her Brexit legislation?
We are getting to a stage where warm words from the Government are not enough. It is the member state that is supposed to negotiate on all of our behalves within the European Union. Scotland did not warrant a single mention in the Prime Minister’s statement. She now has the opportunity to tell us: what Scottish priorities did she raise at the European summit? Did she raise any at all?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have confirmed our commitment to the common travel area; I have been discussing that with the Taoiseach, and officials continued those discussions. The right hon. Gentleman referenced EU citizens; as I said in my statement and in response to the Leader of the Opposition, in the United Kingdom we all value the contribution that EU citizens have made to the United Kingdom—to our society, to our economy, to our public services. We want to be able to give them the reassurance at as early a stage as possible of their continuation. As the UK Government, of course we have a duty to consider UK citizens living in other EU states as well and, as I have said, it has been clear that there is good will on all sides in relation to this matter, but there is an expectation that this will be considered in the round and that we can look at EU citizens here and UK citizens in other member states.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked a number of questions about what I was putting forward to the European leaders of the 27. Of course, what I was putting forward was the views of the United Kingdom. It is the UK that will be negotiating; we listen, we take account of, and we incorporate views of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but when I am sitting there around the EU Council, I am doing so as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: Did my right hon. Friend observe that after she had spoken to the 27 they were far more realistic, particularly with respect to the question of defence and NATO, than they had been beforehand, and in particular than in respect of Donald Tusk’s letter to the 27, which he sent them on 31 January?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is a growing recognition among the member states of the European Union that within NATO it is important to meet the 2% commitment for expenditure on defence. I am pleased to say that a small number of other European member states have already reached that 2% level, but others are actively moving towards that 2%--most notably, perhaps, some of the Baltic states.

Hilary Benn: Last spring, in pointing out that we export more to Ireland than to China and almost twice as much to Belgium as to India, the Prime Minister said:
“It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”
Can she therefore give the House an assurance that in the negotiations she will seek to safeguard tariff and barrier-free access to European markets for British businesses, if necessary by remaining in the customs union if that is the only way to ensure this?

Theresa May: Nobody is talking about replacing European Union trade with trade around the rest of the world. What we are talking about is expanding our trade across the world so that we have a good trading relationship with the European Union but are also able to sign up to new trade agreements with other parts of the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries are already talking to us about such potential trade agreements, and we will do what is necessary to ensure that we can expand trade around the world, including with the European Union.

John Redwood: Is the Prime Minister as shocked as I am that the EU, which is bound by treaty to the rule of law and human decency, is unable to offer a simple reassurance to all British citizens living on the continent that they will not face eviction?

Theresa May: I think that I am more hopeful than my right hon. Friend, in that I have every confidence that we will be able to address this issue as an early discussion within the negotiations. I would have liked to be able to address it outside the negotiations but, sadly, some member states did not wish to do that. However, I think that the goodwill is there to give that reassurance to EU citizens here and to UK citizens in Europe.

Yvette Cooper: On the customs union, the Prime Minister has said that she insists on being outside the common external tariff. If the UK, France and Ireland all have different tariffs on goods coming in from outside, how will she guarantee to have barrier-free goods passing between those different countries? A lot of people cannot see how we can be outside the common external tariff and have barrier-free trade. If it comes to that crunch,  will she agree to go back into the customs union and be part of the common external tariff in order to have barrier-free trade?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is approaching this, as a number of others have done, as a binary issue between customs union membership and having a good trade agreement with the European Union. I do not see it as such. We want to be able to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries around the world, but our membership of parts of the customs union—this is not just a single in or out question—currently prevents us from doing those free trade agreements. I am confident that we can achieve the sort of free trade agreement with the European Union that is in our interest and that of the European Union and that gives us the ability to trade across borders that we want in the future.

Crispin Blunt: In her statement, my right hon. Friend talked about the new and equal partnership that we wish to build between the EU and an independent, self-governing, global Britain. She also pointed out the importance of co-operation on issues such as migration from Libya. Were there any discussions on, and what contemplation is she giving to, Britain’s continuing de facto involvement in the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy after Brexit?

Theresa May: I can reassure my hon. Friend that this is one of the issues we are looking at in relation to the negotiations that are coming up. In the speech that I made at Lancaster House two and a half weeks ago, I was very clear that we recognised the importance of the security and defence co-operation that we have with our European partners and that we wanted to continue that co-operation.

Tim Farron: I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement. I should also like to associate myself and my colleagues with her congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee. During the Prime Minister’s brief walkabout with Angela Merkel—during which I assume she offered her a state visit—did she raise the issue of unaccompanied child refugees? Will she now confirm that the Government will not break the promise, made by the House nine months ago under the terms of the Dubs amendment, of a safe future for those children, and that the scheme will remain open and in use for the rest of this Parliament in order to offer safe haven to at least 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees?

Theresa May: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are indeed putting into practice our commitment to give support to child refugees who have already made it across into Europe and to bring them to the UK. Many child refugees have already been brought to the UK under that scheme.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Ah yes, the good doctor! I call Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that there can be no security for Europe without the intimate involvement of the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend please redouble her efforts to persuade our continental friends—and, indeed, our friends on the Opposition Benches—that, whatever they feel about an individual President’s personal qualities, the way to proceed has to be to reach out to him, to respect his office and to keep strengthening the alliance?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right. One of the themes at the informal Council was the recognition of the role that America has played in supporting Europe’s defence and security and of the need to engage fully with the American Administration. That is what we are doing and what I encourage others to do.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the importance of maintaining the sanctions regime on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. Will she reassure the House that we will, where necessary, continue to agree such sanctions with our European partners once we leave the European Union?

Theresa May: I reassure the hon. Lady that as long we are members of the European Union we will continue to encourage other member states to maintain the sanctions. There are several foreign policy areas, such as on the security of Europe, on which we will want to co-operate in future with our European Union partners. Once we are outside the EU, we will not have a vote around the table on the sanctions regime, but we will continue to make our views clear.

Michael Fabricant: Contrary to the rather negative comments from the Labour party, was my right hon. Friend yet again heartened by Germany? Over the weekend, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said in Der Tagesspiegel that there is no question of the United Kingdom being punished for leaving the European Union and that London remains the heart of the global finance industry. What influence does my right hon. Friend think Germany will have over the negotiations?

John Bercow: I am greatly impressed by the range of the hon. Gentleman’s reading matter.

Michael Fabricant: Vielen Dank!

Theresa May: I was aware of Wolfgang Schäuble’s comments—although I cannot claim to have read that particular publication—and it was an important point. As we move forward towards the triggering of the negotiations, we are now seeing a genuine willingness on both sides to discuss the future EU-UK relationship—the new partnership that we want—and a recognition of the role that the UK plays in Europe. Of course, Germany will be one of the remaining 27 member states, but I look forward to having further conversations with our German counterparts on the importance that they place on the City of London and the UK’s trading relationship with Europe.

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister has guaranteed Parliament a vote on the final deal between the UK and the EU. Will she confirm that that commitment applies both to the article 50 divorce negotiations and to the free trade agreement that she hopes to negotiate? What happens if Parliament says no to the terms of either deal?

Theresa May: We see the negotiations not as being separate but as going together. The arrangement that we aim to negotiate is a deal that will cover both the exit arrangements and the future free trade agreement that we will have the European Union. I have every confidence that we will be able to get a good deal agreed with the EU in relation to both those matters, including our future co-operation not just on trade but on other matters, and will be able to bring a good deal here for Parliament to vote on.

Gerald Howarth: I must confess that I am still reeling from the novelty of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) advocating increased defence expenditure. I warmly welcome him to the clan—we will not tell the Stop the War coalition about his newfound enthusiasm.
The sooner we can give EU residents here the reassurance that they seek, the better. Will the Prime Minister tell us which of our EU partners are so reluctant to offer reciprocal rights to Her Majesty’s subjects who reside in their countries?

Theresa May: I think the whole House was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution in relation to defence spending, but we will wait to see whether that is followed up by commitments in other debates.
On the question of EU nationals, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we give that reassurance as early as possible. It is not a question of not offering reciprocal rights; it is that some member states did not want to negotiate part of what they saw as the fuller negotiations until article 50 has been triggered. It is article 50 that will trigger our ability to discuss the matter.

Nigel Dodds: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Prime Minister’s warm words of congratulation to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee?
Given this country’s enormous contribution to the defence of Europe and, indeed, the west generally, and given that we are one of the world’s biggest contributors to humanitarian and international aid, may I urge the Prime Minister to use every opportunity in discussions with our European friends and partners to reiterate the need for them also to step up to the plate on both those vital issues, which are just as important as some of the other issues that we are discussing?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I give the commitment that I will continue to express to my European colleagues the importance of their actually stepping up to the plate and spending the requisite amount of money on defence. It is important that Europe shows that commitment.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on the informal Council. In particular, I welcome the £30 million-worth of new aid for refugees. With recent reports of children, in particular, returning to the Jungle camp area in Calais, did she have an opportunity to discuss it with her French counterpart? What more can be done to prevent children from returning to that area in the false hope of expecting to come to the UK?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, and today I asked the Home Office to look at the particular concern that people, including children, are now returning to the camps at Calais. Obviously, the action that will be taken within France is a matter for the French Government, who share the concern about the possibility of migrants returning to the camps at Calais. Obviously, the French Government have already acted in relation to that matter. We will continue to operate the schemes that we have been operating, working with the French Government, to ensure that those who have a right to be in the United Kingdom are able to come here.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: What discussions did the Prime Minister have in Malta on trade deals? She will of course be aware that all Members of the European Parliament will be able to vote on the EU-Canada trade deal, but her Government have gone back on their promise to hold a debate on the Floor of the House. Given the prominence given to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement in her very brief Brexit White Paper as an example of what we can expect from future trade deals, why are the Government running so scared of parliamentary scrutiny? This Government are not about taking back control for the people of the whole country; they are about taking back control for themselves.

Theresa May: The CETA deal, as I understand it, will be discussed today in European Committee B, of which the hon. Lady is a member. She will therefore be able to contribute to that debate.

Edward Leigh: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on the issue of acquired rights, which countries are standing out against an immediate deal based on reciprocity before the start of Brexit negotiations? Do those countries include Germany?

Theresa May: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), the issue is whether that should be part of the formal negotiations. It has been made clear that there are those who believe it should be part of the negotiations, and therefore we will be able to consider this issue with our European colleagues once article 50 has been triggered.

Ben Bradshaw: What did the Prime Minister say to her fellow European leaders about her assessment of the Trump-Putin relationship, and specifically about Russian interference in western democracies, including our own?

Theresa May: Concern has been expressed both at this Council meeting and at others about the role that Russia is playing, in a number of ways, with its interference.

Emily Thornberry: By you?

Theresa May: Yes, Lady Nugee, by me. It is a matter of continuing concern and will remain a subject of discussion.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend think that, in her discussions with our 27 EU partners, we will be able to negotiate a reciprocal right for EU citizens living here and for British citizens living abroad sooner than the two-year limit set by article 50?

Theresa May: What I want to see is an agreement about the position of EU citizens and UK citizens at an early part of the negotiations, so that we can give them that reassurance up front and so that it will not be necessary to keep that agreement with the other 27 member states as part of the final deal. We need to have that up front at an early stage, so that we can give people the reassurance that they not only need but deserve.

Alex Salmond: On 15 July last year, the Prime Minister pledged that she would not trigger article 50 until she had an agreed “UK approach” backed by the devolved Administrations. Does she intend to keep her word?

Theresa May: I have been very clear: we are having a number of engagements with the various devolved Administrations, taking their issues into account. We are currently, as we agreed at the last Joint Ministerial Committee plenary session, intensifying the discussions with the Scottish Government on the issues raised in the Scottish White Paper. The decision to trigger article 50 is one that this House has been very clear should be taken. This House voted overwhelmingly on Second Reading that that should be the step we take, and we will be doing so on behalf of the UK.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Sir Desmond Swayne. [Interruption.] He is a very good-natured fellow but he was chuntering at me at precisely the wrong moment. We will forgive him. I thought he was standing—

Desmond Swayne: I was about to go to an appointment, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman now has the opportunity of an appointment with the House. I would be astonished if he has no view to express—it would be a first!

Desmond Swayne: Unsought though it is, I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask: has there been any discussion hitherto about the assets of the European Union to which we might have some claim after 40 years of being a major contributor?

Theresa May: I can assure my right hon. Friend that in looking at the future negotiations, we will be looking at every angle of the relationship with the European Union.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome the €200 million that have been pledged for the Mediterranean crisis? As the right hon. Lady knows, 3,800 people have travelled from Libya to Italy since 1 January. I ask her to be very careful with regard to the Libyan coastguard, because there is strong evidence that it is working with people smugglers to allow these boats to leave Libyan waters. How much of that money will actually be used to counter the work of the criminal gangs?

Theresa May: The work we are doing with the Libyan coastguard is of course about training its people to be able to do the job that we all expect them to do and that many of them want to be able to do. Separately from that, we will be working to enhance our ability to work across borders and through international agreements, using things such as joint investigation teams, to ensure that we are catching these criminal gangs. We have put some extra effort into this. I think we have to put even more effort into it in the future.

Julian Brazier: I welcome this statement and, in particular, my right hon. Friend’s comments about refugees. Does she agree that the work we are doing, both through our development budget and through our armed forces, to underpin the fragile states of Lebanon and Jordan is absolutely pivotal and is vastly more than is being done by the rest of Europe?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the support we have given. We took a very simple view that we can support more people who have fled from Syria by giving them humanitarian aid and support in the region than we can by bringing them to the UK. We will be bringing, and are bringing, vulnerable people—in particular, vulnerable Syrian refugees—here to the UK, but we continue to believe, as the second biggest bilateral donor to the region, that this is important as well. I continue to commend the work of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan in the support that they are giving to the significant number of refugees they are supporting.

Gisela Stuart: Given President Trump’s talk about renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal, did the Prime Minister have any opportunity to discuss, particularly with her French and German counterparts, how we would respond should the President pursue this rather foolish route?

Theresa May: We continue to believe that the Iran nuclear deal was an important step forward and an important contribution to stability in the region. We continue to support it.

Alberto Costa: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Mr Speaker, you will know that the status of EU nationals affects not only some of my constituents but my family and friends personally. The Prime Minister has given me, this House and the country her personal guarantee that she will seek an early agreement on this issue. I am putting my entire trust in the Prime Minister to honour that promise. Getting an early agreement will, in my opinion, be a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for the trust he is placing in me. I reassure him not only of my good intentions in this matter but of the number of my European colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue who also recognise its importance, not only for UK citizens living in their countries but for their citizens living here in the United Kingdom. We all want to be able to give that reassurance to people at an early stage.

Stephen Doughty: On Russia, the Prime Minister made a big point about the fact that she was communicating with our European counterparts about President Trump’s intentions on sanctions. Over the weekend, though, President Trump made a series of bizarre statements about relations with Russia, leading one Republican senator to say:
“I don’t understand what the President’s position is on Russia”.
Does she understand what it is, and has she communicated that to our European partners?

Theresa May: From the discussions I have had so far, I think all the indications are that President Trump feels the need and wants to engage more with Russia than has happened in the past. When I spoke to the Republican party in Philadelphia, the message I gave was that I think it is right to engage, but my message in relation to Russia is to engage, but beware.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Paragraph 4 of the conclusions talks about tackling radicalisation, extremism and terrorism in Libya. Recent reports from the United States say that there are 6,000 Daesh militants in Libya; is that figure correct? How effectively are the Government of National Accord, which is the organisation we support, and the organisation led by General Haftar working to defeat Daesh?

Theresa May: Obviously we are doing all we can and working with all parties that we can in relation to the defeat of Daesh. My hon. Friend understands the issue very well. He will know that while steps are being taken in other places—for example, in Iraq—to take military action against Daesh and to have an impact on it there, it is important that we do not see it able to regroup and come forward in other parts of the world where perhaps there is a vacuum that would enable it to do that. As he mentioned, underlying it all is the fact that we need to deal with the ideology. It is not just about the people at the moment; it is about dealing with the ideology. That is where the work to deal with radicalisation is so important.

Chris Leslie: Will the Prime Minister answer part of the question on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pressed her? Will she confirm that Parliament must give its consent in advance to whatever the new proposed relationship will be, deal or no deal?

Theresa May: I have been very clear that Parliament will have a vote on the deal. This is a matter that is going to be discussed in some detail tomorrow, when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be able to set out in more detail than in response to a single question what the situation will be.

Robert Jenrick: Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I am sure the Prime Minister shares my concern about Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile tests on 29 January. What discussions did she have with European partners about how we can work with the Trump Administration to preserve and, if anything, strengthen the Iranian nuclear deal?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns about the ballistic missile tests that took place. The overwhelming message that we took from the informal council in relation to working with America on a number of issues, including not only Russia and Ukraine but Iran, was that it is important for us to engage directly with the American Administration on these matters and, obviously, make clear the positions that we hold in Europe.

Jonathan Edwards: According to press reports, the Prime Minister’s master plan of being a post-Brexit bridge between Europe and the US was not well received. Does she really think it is in the interests of the British state to be increasingly isolated from Europe and in the hands of a President who is taking the United States on a very dangerous journey?

Theresa May: I have made it clear in a number of my responses today that it is important that the United States and Europe work together and co-operate on the many challenges that we share.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, while it is welcome that the Calais Jungle was dismantled last autumn and that this country did the right thing by vulnerable children, it is very important that we work with the French to prevent the exploitation of children, target the traffickers, and, in order to ensure that the Jungle does not reappear this spring, take full action before the first tent is pitched?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With his particular constituency interest, he is very aware of the issues around migrants being in the camp at Calais and the pressure that that puts on Dover, particularly when people are trying to get through to the United Kingdom. We will make every effort to work with the French Government to ensure that we do not see a return to the sort of camps that we saw last year in Calais before they were cleared.

Kate Hoey: Is the Prime Minister disappointed that the mantra of nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed has been adopted as far as EU citizens in all our countries are concerned? Is it not possible for her to have an informal letter with the Prime Ministers of Spain and France to agree informally, as soon as it is technically possible after the start of article 50 negotiations, to bring in that reciprocality?

Theresa May: It is not the case that people are saying that, in this particular issue, it can only be agreed at the end of the deal when everything else is agreed. What they have said is that they do not believe that negotiations and discussions on it should not start until article 50 has triggered the formal negotiations. I have  every expectation, from the good will that I have seen from others, that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.

Bill Wiggin: May I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents for raising the 2% defence spending issue, because it makes them safer? If the Greeks can do it, why can’t the rest?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The four member states who do it are the United Kingdom, Greece, Poland and Estonia. I am pleased to say that some of the rest are making every effort to do it as well, and are progressing well towards the 2% target.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I remember as a Back Bencher in Department of Trade and Industry questions that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) had No. 1, and I rather irreverently called out, “Get in there, Gapes.” Now is his opportunity. I call Mr Mike Gapes.

Mike Gapes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has referred to her meeting with President Trump, but she has not mentioned her meeting with President Erdogan. Did she take the opportunity to inform other European Union leaders about those discussions, the 3 million Syrian refugees that Turkey is having to take and the support, or lack of it, that President Erdogan feels has come from the EU so far? Did she also discuss with them the customs union, of which Turkey is a member?

Theresa May: As we were discussing the issue of migration, I was able to make reference to the EU-Turkey deal—indeed, a number of references were made to it—which has seen the number of migrants moving from Turkey to Greece being reduced significantly. When I was in Turkey, I commended the Turkish Government for the support that they have given to the 3 million refugees who are in Turkey.

Ben Howlett: I warmly welcome this Government’s commitment regularly to come before this House to update Members on the progress of EU-UK negotiations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Council statements are a perfect opportunity to update the House on the Prime Minister’s negotiations with EU national leaders after we trigger article 50?

Theresa May: The EU Council statements are given in response to business that is done at the EU Council. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be every opportunity for Parliament to be kept informed as we go through this process. There have already been 70 debates or statements on this issue in Parliament and 30 reviews by different parliamentary Committees on different aspects of Brexit. I think I can say that not a day has gone by since the referendum that this issue has not been discussed in this House in some shape or form.

Alison Thewliss: Annette Street Primary School in my constituency is wonderfully diverse, as many new Scots have made Glasgow their home. Saqib from Annette Street says:
“There are lots of children from Annette Street that are from Europe. We want to know if they will have to leave or not.”
Saying “as soon as possible” is not a good enough answer for Saqib, Prime Minister—. when we will actually know whether these children will get to stay in Scotland?

Theresa May: I repeat the answer that I have given to others: I expect to be able to deal with this issue in relation to those who are from the European Union and living here in the United Kingdom at an early stage in the negotiations. There is good will on all sides to be able to address the issue when the negotiations have been triggered because everybody understands the concern that people have about their future.

Andrew Turner: Might I ask the Prime Minister which are more important—Europeans in Britain or Brits in the EU?

Theresa May: It is not a question of which are more important. We recognise that there are people from European Union member states who have made their lives—for some, over a significant period of time—here in the United Kingdom. I also recognise that there are UK citizens who have made their lives in other European Union member states. I want all those people to be able to carry on living where they choose to live in the security of knowing that their future is determined and that the choice is up to them. I want to ensure that that opportunity and reassurance are given to all those people, and I hope and expect that we will be able do that at an early stage of the negotiations.

Helen Goodman: The Prime Minister said that the other European Union member states welcomed the clarity of her objectives. Did she have any discussion with them about the realism of completing the substantive negotiations within 18 months?

Theresa May: I have every expectation—indeed, a number of comments have been made by others around Europe about the importance of ensuring this—that we can do this deal and complete these negotiations within the timescale set.

Heidi Allen: I can see that the Prime Minister is genuinely and sincerely disappointed not to have been able to reassure EU citizens ahead of the formal negotiations. In the light of the rapidly shifting landscape—for example, Trump’s divisive immigration policies and how that situation is making people in this country feel—if the deal with fellow nations is not done as early in the negotiation period as the Prime Minister would like, will she review it again and look at a unilateral agreement for those EU citizens?

Theresa May: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has shown for some considerable time on the position of EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. I have every expectation, given the responses that I have had so far from other member states, that we will indeed be able to get that reassurance at an early stage. I want and intend to be able to reassure people  from other EU member states who are living here in the United Kingdom, and I have every expectation that we will be able to get that reassurance at an early stage of the negotiations.

Stella Creasy: In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she put on her wish list an entirely new form of membership of the customs union: an associate membership. Did she raise the idea with the other members of the European Council this weekend, and quite what did they make of it?

Theresa May: What I actually did in my Lancaster House speech was to say that I had not come to a firm decision as to whether the future relationship should be an associate membership or some other sort of relationship with the customs union. I was clear that we need to be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries around the world.

Matt Warman: My constituency contains proportionately more EU nationals than any other, and they say two things to me—that they deeply want their rights in this country to be reassured, and that they understand that it is vital that this country is the kind of country that also stands up for the interests of its citizens abroad. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a test of national character and that although the politics may be hard, it is the only option we can reasonably pursue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. We should be clear that we have a duty to consider UK citizens who have chosen to make their life outside the UK and live in other European Union member states, as well as having a duty to consider EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. That is why I expect that we will, at an early stage, be able to give reassurance to both.

Tom Brake: With how many EU leaders at this Council or earlier Councils since 23 June did the Prime Minister discuss the UK staying in the single market post-Brexit?

Theresa May: What I have been clear about with all the European leaders I have spoken to is that what we want when we leave the European Union is a good free trade arrangement with the member states of the European Union, in the form of the European Union. That is what we want, and that is what we will be working for.

Owen Smith: The summit began with the German Chancellor admonishing the Prime Minister for the threat to undercut our European neighbours—the alternative economic model the Prime Minister talked about at Lancaster House. Could she confirm that she is still threatening to cut corporation tax in a race to the bottom, and could she tell us whether she is worried that the manner of the negotiations is damaging our reputation abroad?

Theresa May: What I set out in the Lancaster House speech were my 12 objectives for the negotiations. Within that was a new free trade agreement with the European Union and a belief that we have every opportunity and every possibility of getting the arrangement that we want for the future strength of the UK economy.  What I also said very clearly was that we would not be wanting to sign up to a bad deal for the UK. I think the UK public want to hear from their Prime Minister that we are not willing to sign up to a bad deal, and will make every effort and expect to get the best deal possible for the United Kingdom.

Thomas Tugendhat: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Was the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling present at the start of the statement?

Thomas Tugendhat: Absolutely.

John Bercow: And he has remained throughout?

Thomas Tugendhat: Absolutely, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Then he may speak.

Thomas Tugendhat: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is absolutely at the heart of Europe in defence terms? Did she get agreement from partners at the European Council that our alliance with countries such as Denmark and Estonia very much demonstrates that we are far more influential in some of the other areas of European policy than is often recognised?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the role that the UK plays in the defence of Europe as a whole is recognised widely across Europe, and I have been very clear that we want to continue to co-operate on matters such as defence with our European allies once we have left the EU.

Roger Mullin: The Prime Minister indicated that she speaks on behalf of the whole United Kingdom, which she will know is a differentiated Union, with Scotland having its own legal and education system. What issues, therefore, did she specifically raise in relation to Scotland’s requirements?

Theresa May: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the answer I will give him is the same answer that I gave earlier: when I go into the European Council, and when we go into these negotiations, the European Union will be negotiating with the UK, and the Government will be negotiating on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom.

David Hanson: The Prime Minister rightly mentioned people trafficking and sexual exploitation in her statement. Did she give any reassurances, or did she get any reassurances from her European partners, on the UK’s continued membership of the means of exchanging information, such as Europol?

Theresa May: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, that will be a matter, of course, for the negotiations, but as I said in my Lancaster House speech, one of the objectives that we will set is our continuing co-operation on justice and security matters.

Margaret Ferrier: It has been reported that, at the EU Council meeting on Friday, Angela Merkel, among other leaders, was less than impressed with the Prime Minister’s threat to turn the UK into a tax haven. Can the Prime Minister outline exactly what her EU counterparts said to her regarding that and whether she intends to take that threat off the table?

Theresa May: As I said in response to an earlier question on this matter, what I have done is very clearly to set out—I think it is absolutely right, and this clarity has been welcomed by other European leaders—that we expect to get a good deal in our negotiations with the European Union, and that includes a good deal on a free trade agreement, and that we will not be prepared to sign up to a bad deal.

Kevin Brennan: My constituents Mr and Mrs Regan came to see me on Saturday about their son, who has a Greek wife and who lives and works in the middle east. After Brexit, they plan to come and live in the UK. Will their daughter-in-law have to apply for a settlement visa? I said I could not answer that question and that I would ask someone who could, so could the Prime Minister answer it for me?

Theresa May: I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s question that he is talking about somebody who is currently living outside the United Kingdom. The arrangements in relation to the movement of EU citizens into the UK from elsewhere after Brexit are, of course, matters that the Home Office is currently looking at, and they will be subject to discussion by Parliament.

Carol Monaghan: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on the importance of EU nationals, but does she understand the damage that is caused when we continue to use EU nationals, including those working in highly skilled areas and STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—businesses, as bargaining chips in our negotiations?

Theresa May: We want to be able to provide reassurance to people who are EU citizens living here in the UK, and to provide that reassurance also to EU citizens living elsewhere in Europe. I remind the hon. Lady that during the Scottish independence referendum the First Minister told EU nationals that they would lose the right to stay here if the—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. All this finger-wagging at the Prime Minister is rather unseemly. It does not constitute statesmanship of the highest order. The question has been asked, the Prime Minister is going to answer, and that answer must be heard with courtesy.

Theresa May: The First Minister said that they would lose the right to stay here if the EU did not allow an independent Scotland to rejoin, and of course the EU made it very clear that Scotland could not consider that it was going to get automatic membership of the European Union.

Chris Matheson: Were there any discussions at the Council about reports of the likely appointment by President Trump of Mr Ted Malloch as his ambassador to the European Union?  Would such an appointment cause concern to the Prime Minister, since Mr Malloch has reportedly likened the European Union to the Soviet Union?

Theresa May: I have been very clear that it is in the interests of the UK to have a continuing strong European Union, and that is a point that I have made to the American Administration.

Alan Brown: My wife is an EU national, and unlike the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), neither she nor I have any faith in this Government doing the right thing unless we see actions on the rights of EU nationals rather than so-called warm words. If the Prime Minister sees herself as a leader, why does she not confirm the rights of EU nationals? That would also send a positive message to UK citizens living in other EU countries rather than their having to be a bargaining chip.

Theresa May: I have been very clear about my intentions in relation to EU nationals living here in the United Kingdom, but it is only right and proper that the United Kingdom Government should also have a care for the UK citizens living in the European Union.

Stuart McDonald: At the summit the Prime Minister announced support to allow up to 22,000 people to reunite with family members they have become separated from during their journey. Can she say a little more about what this means in practice and, in particular, whether it includes extra efforts towards reuniting refugees with family members in the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: For those who are in member states of the European Union, the Dublin regulations obviously allow for reuniting families under certain circumstances. That is something we have been actively  working on. Over the past year or so, we have actively worked with the French Government to increase the speed at which we are able to reunite children with families here in the United Kingdom, and we continue to do so.

Gavin Newlands: We are constantly told by Ministers at the Dispatch Box that they are maintaining close relationships with countries that have dubious human rights records, allowing us to speak to those regimes as only friends can. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us, given our extra-special, super-duper relationship with the US, what particular home truths on Trump’s outrageous plans she delivered on our behalf?

Theresa May: I was very clear about the UK’s position on a whole range of issues that we wish to discuss with the United States Administration. It was the special relationship that enabled us very quickly to ensure that UK citizens were not covered by the ban and the Executive order that President Trump brought into place in relation to the movement of people from seven countries into the United States.

Richard Drax: May I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend’s comments so far as the Queen is concerned, and add my congratulations to Her Majesty? I wonder whether any EU leader said to her during her meeting how envious they are of having such a wonderful Head of State.

Theresa May: I seriously say to my hon. Friend that I regularly hear comments from other leaders, not just in Europe but in other parts of the world, about how impressive Her Majesty the Queen is, about her dedication to this country, and about how lucky we are to have her as our Head of State.

Points of Order

Emily Thornberry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.

Theresa May: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required. I have the matter in hand. Two points, very simply: first of all, I thank the Prime Minister for what she has just said. Secondly, in so far as there is any uncertainty on this matter, let me dispel that uncertainty. I do so from my own knowledge and on the professional advice of the Clerk. We refer in this Chamber to Members by their constituencies or, if they have a title—for example, shadow Minister—by their title. To refer to them by another name is not the right thing to do. But the Prime Minister has said what she has said, and I thank her for that. We will leave this matter there.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With great respect to your statement at the beginning of our proceedings, on behalf of the Commission, that the dress and composition of the Clerks sitting in this House should change forthwith after the recess, may I urge you to reconsider this and to consider whether the whole House ought to have an opportunity to address the matter before it is enacted?

Gerald Howarth: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I will come to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) in a moment. First of all, in answer to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), let me say this. There are two elements to the announcement that I made at the start of proceedings. First, I referred to an extension of the range of people working within the Department of Chamber and Committee Services who should have the opportunity to serve at the Table in the Chamber. That constitutes an extension. In 2012, I introduced, with the agreement and co-operation of the Clerks’ department, a scheme that would give young and rising Clerks, who might otherwise have had to wait several years to serve at the Table, the opportunity to do so, being mentored in the process. So the first point I want to make to the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he will agree with it, but I hope that it will contribute to the quality of the debate—is that I am merely extending a scheme that was introduced some years ago, which has done no harm to the House; which has not been objected to, to my knowledge, by any Member of the House, including the hon. Gentleman; and which has, in fact, been beneficial.
Secondly, on the matter of wigs, with which I think the hon. Gentleman is, at least in part, preoccupied, I say this to him. If he believes that the time of the House, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, would be well spent by discussing this matter, he knows the avenues that are open to him.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). I was taken by surprise by your statement, which had the appearance—I hope that you will not misunderstand me—of an Executive order. I was slightly surprised by that, for I had discussed the matter with the Clerk, who had done me the enormous courtesy of asking my view. I had declared informally that I thought that it was sensible to continue, because this is the High Court of Parliament, and I do think that the Clerks, dressed as they are, add to the dignity of the House. Some of us are not always capable of enhancing that, but the Clerks do so.
I have just read the letter from the Clerk of the House to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, in which he writes:
“Wigs have been worn by the Clerks at the Table for several centuries”.
So why change? The Clerk of the House states that some people take the view
“that the image they convey to those watching proceedings live or on television is of quaintness and of a chilling and antique formality”.
No constituent in Aldershot has ever expressed that view to me, and I think it would be appropriate, at some point, that we should discuss this rather than having an Executive order.

John Bercow: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds not just for raising their concerns, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but for their courtesy in giving me advance notice of their intention to do so.
I say, with courtesy and on advice, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)—and this is relevant to any response to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds—that this is a matter that can properly be decided by the Speaker. I thought it proper to consult my colleagues on the House of Commons Commission, the strategic governing body of the House, and I must tell both hon. Gentlemen that the House of Commons Commission agreed without objection to the two changes: the extension of those who serve at the Table and the removal of wigs.
Beyond that, I would say to the hon. Member for Aldershot—I tease him a tad here—that my understanding from one who has considerable knowledge and expertise in these matters is that, although certainly during the past couple of hundred years it has been the norm for Clerks serving at the Table to wear wigs, if he goes back some several centuries, which is normally an enjoyable sport to the hon. Gentleman, he will find that in fact Clerks did not wear wigs.
The final point I make to the hon. Member for Aldershot is that it was not an Executive order; it was a request from the Clerks themselves, to which I and the members of the House of Commons Commission agreed. People are entitled to their views about it, but the idea  that this was something I dreamed up and sought to impose against the will of the Clerks is 100% wrong. The hon. Gentleman might give the Clerk of the House some credit. The Clerk is open to constructive reform, and he has been the champion of it in this case.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you noted the deep concern expressed by Members from both sides of the House—the 170 who have signed early-day motion 890, and those who do not sign EDMs but have made their views known publicly during the past week—regarding offering the honour of a speech to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall or, indeed, elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster? Will you tell us what approaches have been made to you, what discussions have taken place with the relevant authorities—the keyholders—for such an approach to go ahead, and whether there are any ways in which those of us who have deep concerns about President Trump’s comments can make that known to the responsible authorities?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will say this: an address by a foreign leader to both Houses of Parliament is not an automatic right; it is an earned honour. Moreover, there are many precedents for state visits to take place in our country that do not include an address to both Houses of Parliament. That is the first point.
The second point is that in relation to Westminster Hall, there are three keyholders—the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker of the House of the Lords and the Lord Great Chamberlain. Ordinarily, we are able to work by consensus, and  the Hall would be used for a purpose, such as an address or another purpose, by agreement of the three keyholders.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman, to all who have signed his early-day motion and to others with strong views about this matter on either side of the argument that before the imposition of the migrant ban, I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall, but after the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.
So far as the Royal Gallery is concerned—again, I operate on advice—I perhaps do not have as strong a say in that matter. It is in a different part of the building, although customarily an invitation to a visiting leader to deliver an address there would be issued in the names of the two Speakers. I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery.
I conclude by saying to the hon. Gentleman that we value our relationship with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker. However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism, and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons. [Applause.]

Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Two words: well done. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: No, we should not have clapping in the Chamber, but sometimes it is easier to let it go than to make a huge fuss about it.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — [Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

[1st Allocated Day]

Considered in Committee
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
New Clause 3

Parliamentary oversight of negotiations

“Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to—
(a) lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports, at intervals of no more than two months on the progress of the negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union;
(b) lay before each House of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable a copy in English of any document which the European Council or the European Commission has provided to the European Parliament or any committee of the European Parliament relating to the negotiations;
(c) make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause establishes powers through which the UK Parliament can scrutinise the UK Government throughout the negotiations.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Pennycook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Financial services—reports—
“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK financial services sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”
This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK financial services sector.
New clause 22—Competition Policy—
“Following the exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall make an annual report to Parliament on its policy regarding state aid, government intervention in industry and fair competition arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from European Union competition regulations.”
This new clause seeks the publication of an annual report from Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the competition policy consequences of withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 29—Reporting to Parliament—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to report to Parliament each quarter on her progress in negotiations on Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This new clause puts a requirement on the Prime Minister for quarterly reporting during the negotiating process.
New clause 51—Approval of White Paper on withdrawal from EU—
“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the White Paper on withdrawal from the EU.
(2) The White Paper must, in particular, provide information on—
(a) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK;
(b) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements;
(c) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—
(i) labour rights,
(ii) health and safety at work,
(iii) the Working Time Directive,
(iv) consumer rights, and
(v) environmental standards;
(d) the proposed status of—
(i) EU citizens living in the UK and,
(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,
after the UK has exited the EU;
(e) estimates as to the impact of the UK leaving the EU on—
(i) the balance of trade,
(ii) GDP, and
(iii) unemployment.”
New clause 56—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—
“The Prime Minister may not give the notification under section 1 until such time as Parliament has determined whether the UK should also seek to withdraw from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”
This new clause would allow for proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny of the United Kingdom’s membership of the Single Market and whether the UK should remain as a member of the European Economic Area prior to the Prime Minister triggering Article 50.
New clause 111—European Police Office (Europol)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 112—European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 113—European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 114—Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 115—European Medicines Agency (EMEA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 116—European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 117—European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 118—European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 119—European Police College (Cepol)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament  setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 120—European Environment Agency (EEA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 121—European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 122—European Investment Bank (EIB)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 123—Eurojust—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with Eurojust.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Eurojust following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 124—European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 125—European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 126—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 127—European Satellite Centre (EUSC)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 128—Protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 129—Protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 130—Traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 134—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—
“The Prime Minister may not give the notification at section (1) until such time as a Parliamentary vote has approved the withdrawal of the UK from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”
New clause 136—Approval of report on withdrawal from EU—
“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the report on withdrawal from the EU.
(2) The report must, in particular, provide information on—
(a) EU citizens living in the UK and,
(b) UK citizens living in the EU, after the UK has exited the EU.”
New clause 151—Renewables—reports—
“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK renewables sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”
This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK renewables sector.
New clause 169—European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 171—Erasmus+ Programme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 173—European Research Area (ERA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 176—Requirement to have regard to Motions passed by Parliament—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act.
New clause 177—European Arrest Warrant—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 8—EU and United Kingdom nationals—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must resolve to guarantee the rights of residence of anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which section 1 comes into force in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates, and United Kingdom nationals living in the parts of the European Union that are not the United Kingdom before the European Council finalises their initial negotiating guidelines and directives.”
Amendment 83, in clause1,page1,line2,leave out “the Prime Minister” and insert “Parliament”.
Amendment 45,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that EU nationals living and working in the United Kingdom on the date that the UK withdraws from the United Kingdom will be subject to the same citizenship rights that applied prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal.”
Amendment 78,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Foreign Secretary has published a revised programme of work for the UK Permanent Representative to the European Union for the duration of the negotiating period, and laid a copy of the report before Parliament.”
Amendment 84,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The persons authorised to give notification under subsection (1) on behalf of Parliament are—
(a) The Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the House of Commons, and
(b) the Lord Speaker, on behalf of the House of Lords.
(1B) Parliament may only give notification under subsection (1) if—
(a) both Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification; and
(b) votes in favour of notification have been passed by—
(i) the Scottish Parliament,
(ii) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1C) A notification under subsection (1) must be given as soon as is practicable after the two Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification.”
Amendment 12,page1,line5,at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the UK Exiting the EU.”
Amendment 17,page1,line5,at end insert —
“(3) Before exercising power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must give undertakings that all EU citizens exercising their Treaty rights in the UK who—
(a) were resident in the UK on 23 June 2016, and
(b) had been resident since at least 23 December 2015
be granted permanent residence in the UK.”
Amendment 36,page1,line5,at end insert—
“(3) Before the Prime Minister issues a notification under this section, Her Majesty’s Government has a duty to lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper setting out its approach   to any transitional arrangements with the European Union following the expiry of the two-year period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.”
This amendment would require the Government to set out, prior to triggering Article 50, a detailed plan for a transitional arrangement with the EU covering the period between the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiation period and the coming into force of a final Treaty on the UK’s new relationship with the EU.
Amendment 44,page1,line5,at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must lay a report before Parliament on the Government’s proposed negotiation package, including detailed and specific information on—
(a) the proposed terms of the UK’s access to the Single Market (if any) or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(b) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(c) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(d) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—
(i) labour rights,
(ii) health and safety at work,
(iii) the Working Time Directive,
(iv) consumer rights, and
(v) environmental standards;
(e) the proposed status of—
(i) EU citizens living in the UK, and
(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,
after the UK has exited the EU or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(f) details of the Government’s internal estimates as to the impact of the above measures on—
(i) the balance of trade,
(ii) GDP, and
(iii) unemployment,
in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
(4) The report in subsection (3) must set out the costs and benefits of holding a referendum which asks the public to decide between the proposed negotiation package or remaining a member of the European Union.
(5) The report in subsection (3) must not be laid before the House before 1 December 2017.”
New clause 6—EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom—
“(1) Anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom—
(a) on the day on which section 1 comes into force, and
(b) in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates,
shall have no less favourable rights of residence or opportunities to obtain rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”
This new clause guarantees the rights of EU nationals living in the UK at the date when article 50 is triggered.
New clause 14—Rights for EU nationals—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”
This new Clause would ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
New clause 27—EU nationals in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under subsection 1(1) unless the Prime Minister is satisfied that arrangements are in place to secure that every individual who is—
(a) not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and
(b) on the date on which this Act comes into force (“the Commencement Date”), is resident in the United Kingdom pursuant to any right derived from the treaties,
shall, when the treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, continue to be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom on terms no less favourable than those applicable to that individual on the Commencement Date.”
New clause 33—Immigration—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to how this will give the UK control over its immigration system.”
New clause 57—Effect of notification of withdrawal—
“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”
This savings new clause is designed to protect the residence rights of those EU citizens who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the date of the EU referendum. It would ensure that those rights do not fall away automatically two years after notice of withdrawal has been given, if no agreement is reached with the EU. This new clause would implement a recommendation made in paragraph 53 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report ‘The human rights implications of Brexit’.
New clause 67—Indefinite leave to remain for EU citizens in Wales—
“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power in section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to automatically granting indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales.”
This new clause requires the Prime Minister to commit to implementing the Leave Campaign’s pledge to automatically grant indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales before exercising the powers outlined in section 1.
New clause 108—Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the current status, rights and entitlements of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom, inclusive of and in addition to their status, rights and entitlements as EU citizens.”
New clause 135—Effect of notification of withdrawal (No. 2)—
“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those rights of residence enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and UK citizens lawfully resident in the EU on 23 June 2016 after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”
New clause 142—EU Students in the UK—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that EU students present in the UK on the date the United Kingdom withdraws from the EU will be granted visas to allow them residency rights for the full duration of their academic courses.”
New clause 146—Rights of EU citizens in the UK—
“Any citizen of an EU Member State lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act comes into force shall have no less favourable rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”

Matthew Pennycook: New clause 3 concerns the parliamentary oversight of the negotiations that will follow the triggering of article 50. It would require the Government to report back to Parliament at least every two months on the progress of negotiations and to lay reports before both Houses of Parliament on each occasion. Let me be clear that the purpose is to improve the Bill by providing Parliament with the means not only to effectively monitor the Government’s progress throughout the negotiations, but to actively contribute to their success by facilitating substantive scrutiny that can positively influence the outcome.
We are here today debating this new clause and other new clauses and amendments to the Bill only because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s November ruling on the triggering of article 50, confirming that only Parliament, not Ministers using the royal prerogative, can initiate the start of the UK’s exit from the EU.

Bill Cash: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: I will not give way and will make a little progress, if that is okay.
The Supreme Court was right to make it clear that Parliament should exert democratic influence over Brexit. That influence should be felt at the start, throughout and, most importantly, at the end of the formal process of leaving the EU. In practice, the Opposition believe that there must be three distinct pillars of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability: first, the provision of a detailed plan published prior to the start of negotiations that can inform future debates and votes, and that can be used throughout as a point of reference; secondly, a means of ensuring robust parliamentary oversight throughout the formal negotiation period; and thirdly, a meaningful debate and vote in Parliament on the proposed deal before it is signed off with the European Council and Parliament.

Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that in a negotiation that could take many months and which will be extraordinarily complicated it would be in the best interests of the UK to have to reveal its hand every two months?

Matthew Pennycook: I want to make it clear that we are not asking the Government to reveal the minutiae of the negotiations or to micromanage the process, and I will say more about that further on in my remarks.
Under pressure, the Government conceded the first of those requests in the form of the White Paper published on Thursday, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will seek to win agreement to the third tomorrow, when he moves new clause 1. The purpose of new clause 3 is to secure the second of those pillars and, in so doing, ensure an enhanced role for hon. Members throughout the process. The Government should welcome an enhanced role for Parliament throughout the negotiations for two reasons.

Bill Cash: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: I will make some progress, if I may.
First, although Ministers obviously need sufficient room for manoeuvre, and understandably cannot therefore consent to the micromanagement of the process by parliamentarians, active and robust parliamentary scrutiny will aid the negotiations by testing and strengthening the Government’s evolving negotiating position and their hand with the EU. Secondly, facilitating substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability would help to bind the wounds of the referendum and forge a genuine consensus in the months and years ahead, by reassuring the public, particularly the 16.1 million people who voted remain, that they will not be marginalised or ignored but that their views will be taken into account and their interests championed by their representatives in Parliament.

Sammy Wilson: If the House is to pore over the details of the Government’s negotiating position and express its view on them at regular intervals, that will be known to those with whom we are negotiating. How will that not undermine the Government’s position?

Matthew Pennycook: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, he will see that that is not what we are asking for. When it comes to sensitive or confidential matters, we hope that there are mechanisms to allow the House to view and respond to those.
In leaving the EU, we need a deal and a process that work not just for the 52% who voted leave or the 48% who voted remain but for each and every person with a stake in our country’s future. No one can reasonably accuse the Secretary of State of being unwilling to appear before the House—he has responded to every question put to him on this subject, even if, to ape the language of the White Pape, it has not always felt as if we have got an answer—but we require something more throughout the formal negotiations: an opportunity for hon. Members to play an active role in scrutinising and influencing the process, rather than merely to observe and comment on it retrospectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly argued on Second Reading, hon. Members are not passive bystanders, but should be active participants in the process.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Parliament is sovereign throughout the whole process and has a chance to look at the general direction the Government are taking by withdrawing from the EU?

Matthew Pennycook: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As she will see, we are asking for no more and no less than the European Parliament will get.
Substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are not the same as accountability after the event, and new clause 3 is focused on securing what is needed for the former. The Secretary of State has made it clear on numerous occasions that when it comes to the provision of information during the negotiations it is his intention that hon. Members will enjoy not just the same access to information as their counterparts in the European Parliament, but that the situation here will be an improvement on what the European Parliament sees.
We do not know precisely what the Members of European Parliament will see throughout the negotiations, but it is reasonable to assume that their involvement is likely to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 218 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and that the detailed arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. It is worth stating for the record, therefore, what that involves. Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes it clear that the European Parliament shall be
“immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements”.
In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information shall be provided to the European Parliament
“in sufficient time for it to be able to express its point of view if appropriate, and for the Commission to be able to take Parliament’s views as far as possible into account”.
Lastly, in order to facilitate oversight of any sensitive material, article 24 of the framework agreement states:
“Parliament and the Commission undertake to establish appropriate procedures and safeguards for the forwarding of confidential information from the Commission to Parliament”.
In short, the Commission needs to let the European Parliament know in good time what it is proposing, with provisions made for sensitive or confidential material, and to give sufficient time for the Parliament to provide feedback, and then act upon it if appropriate. That is now the baseline of European parliamentary scrutiny—the baseline that the Secretary of State has assured us this House can expect not only to match, but to surpass.

Andrew Murrison: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that most European papers are published in English by the House of Commons Library. He has not yet answered the question about where he would draw his line in the sand in respect of what he refers to as micromanagement and material that should be discussed every two months.

Matthew Pennycook: I have been absolutely clear about that, I am afraid, and it is up to the Government to determine what sensitive material would come before Members of Parliament in that process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: Let me make a little more progress, if I may.
In acknowledging the delicate balance between the need for robust parliamentary oversight and the needs of the Executive, it is that baseline of oversight that new clause 3 seeks to secure for this place. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) argued on Second Reading, process matters.

Gloria De Piero: I respect the democratic result of the referendum, but we all owe it to our constituents to get the best deal for them. The east midlands exports 50% of its goods to the European Union, and I would be failing in my duty as an east midlands MP if I did not have a chance to ensure that those jobs are not jeopardised by the Government deal. Is that not why scrutiny is important?

Matthew Pennycook: That is precisely why scrutiny is important, and if the Government were approaching this in a reasonable and sensible manner, they would actively welcome my hon. Friend’s input into the process.
The Government should embrace rather than resist agreeing to a proper process for actively engaging the House in the considerable challenge it now faces. The undertakings sought in new clause 3 would ensure the active and constructive involvement of Parliament in that process and increase the chances of securing the best possible deal for the British people. I hope the Government will consider new clause 3 in the spirit in which it has been moved, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
In turning to the important matter of the rights of European Union nationals living in the UK, I shall speak to new clause 8, but principally to new clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) argued so passionately during last week’s Second Reading debate, EU nationals who have put down roots in the UK are part of the fabric of our nations and our communities. They are our neighbours. Many of them sustain the public services we rely on and they deserve to be treated with respect. They should not be used as bargaining chips in the negotiations.
I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had, as I have, EU nationals attending their constituency advice surgeries to express the sense of trauma and anxiety that they have felt every single day since 23 June last year, and to seek reassurance. While individual hon. Members can and, I am sure, have sought to reassure, we can provide EU nationals living in our constituencies with no guarantees. Only the Government have it within their gift to do so. The purpose of new clause 6 is therefore a simple one. It will ensure that on the day section 1 of the Act comes into force, the rights of residence of EU nationals living in the UK or the opportunities for those nationals to obtain such rights of residence will be guaranteed on the date on which article 50 notice is formally served.

Keith Vaz: Even the Prime Minister’s statement today did not provide certainty. What constituents who have lived here for a number of years say to us is that they need certainty, so that they can know how to plan their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, in any event, someone who has lived here for five years should be able to get permanent settlement and that someone who has lawfully lived here six years should also be eligible for British citizenship? It is vital that the Government state this very clearly.

Matthew Pennycook: I agree 100% with my right hon. Friend.

Gisela Stuart: May I urge my hon. Friend to look at the report of a commission organised by British Future, which I chaired? The report, which received cross-party support, said that the triggering of article 50 was the point at which rights would come in, but that there should be a transition period of about five years allowing people to normalise their status, and that there should be a special status to allow for our relationship with Ireland. We believed that that would be a way of giving certainty to EU citizens, and would also be perceived as fair throughout the EU.

Matthew Pennycook: I think that that echoes part of a suggestion that we have made. It is touched on in other new clauses, such as new clause 57.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I shall make a little progress, if I may.
Hon. Members will know that permanent residence is an EU law concept similar to, but not exactly the same as, indefinite leave to remain in the UK for non-EU citizens. It is not guaranteed that the concept itself will continue to exist after we leave the EU. However, we are not debating today the complex legal issues that arise in this area; instead, we are debating a principle. We are debating how the rights associated with permanent residence are to be guaranteed.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I am happy to give way, but then I am going to make a bit of progress.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not debating the detail, but I am afraid that that is what he is proposing. He is proposing a rather wide blanket measure which would give many people an unconditional right to stay in the country. What provision does his new clause make—I cannot see any—for the more than 4,000 EU nationals who are in United Kingdom prisons? What arrangements will there be when we leave the European Union to ensure that we can remove them from the United Kingdom, which we can currently do under the EU prisoner transfer agreement?

Matthew Pennycook: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it depends on the terms of the sentence. New clause 6 seeks an in-principle guarantee from the Government that they will secure the rights of EU nationals.
Few would question the fact that Brexit has divided the country, but on this issue there is a clear consensus that the Government should act decisively to give certainty to EU nationals. A motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in July last year, which called on the Government to commit themselves with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain, was passed overwhelmingly in the House, and that parliamentary support is mirrored among the public. Polling by British Future shows that 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, support the ability of existing EU nationals to stay in the UK. The Labour party has called repeatedly for the Government to act to end the uncertainty that those people face. Indeed, such is the level of consensus that even Migration Watch and the UK Independence party have joined those calls.

Matthew Pennycook: The only question that remains is whether the rights that flow from permanent residency, and the opportunity for those who are eligible to obtain those rights in the future, will be secured by means of a reciprocal agreement or unilaterally guaranteed by the Government.

Steve McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Matthew Pennycook: I will not give way, if that is okay, because I know that many other Members wish to speak, and I do not think the Front Bench should take the majority of the time.
We recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister and her Ministers to achieve a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would also guarantee the rights of UK nationals in other EU countries. We owe a duty to our nationals in those EU countries, and securing their rights must remain a priority. However, with no reciprocal agreement reached and with just weeks to go until the triggering of article 50, we believe that the uncertainty must be brought to an end by unilateral action on the part of the Government.

John Penrose: rose—

Mark Field: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: I am not going to give way any further.
There are hard-headed as well as moral reasons for doing this. Guaranteeing the rights of residence of EU nationals unilaterally on the date on which the article 50 notice is given would not only end the uncertainty that millions now face. It would also ensure the best possible start to the negotiations that lie ahead, and would send a clear signal to the small minority who have treated the referendum result as a licence to victimise others that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so.
A number of other new clauses and amendments share the purpose of new clause 6 in seeking to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. Indeed, some add additional safeguards to the basic guarantee that we seek. In particular, new clause 57, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), would ensure not only that the residence rights of EU citizens were protected, but that those rights did not automatically fall away at the end of the article 50 negotiating period if no agreement had been reached. If my right hon. and learned Friend were minded to push the new clause to a vote, she would have our support.
What matters in the end is that this issue is resolved as a matter of urgency in order to end the anxiety that people are currently feeling, and the distress that will be caused by a prolonged period of uncertainty during the negotiations. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us, and the thousands of EU nationals and their families out there, the reassurances that we seek.

Mark Harper: I note that this group is a fairly hefty one with a large number of amendments, but I wish to make only five points, so I will attempt not to take up too much of the House’s time.
The first point that I wish to address is that of parliamentary scrutiny, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) at the beginning of his remarks. A number of new clauses and amendments talk about producing a  raft of reports, including the rather large number of new clauses from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). What I want to throw out there is the question of what that really adds to the process. It seems to me—I have also spoken to a number of my constituents about this—that this House has spent a lot of time, as is appropriate, debating Brexit and all the issues that flow from it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been here on a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements, and it seems to me that Ministers have furnished the House with a significant amount of information. Moreover, in the White Paper published last week, which I read very carefully, there was a reiteration of the commitment to bring forward the great repeal Bill, which will be very wide in scope and will enable Parliament to debate these matters, and there was also the suggestion that it is very likely that there will be primary legislation on immigration and customs matters, which will, of course, be debated by the House.

John Penrose: I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a vast amount of information already coming out. Does he agree that even if that co-operative attitude were to change, there are plenty of mechanisms—urgent questions and the like—available to both Government and Opposition Members to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to provide the kind of explanation that everybody here is expecting? Does he therefore agree that it is very hard to see how the Opposition’s proposals build on or add to those mechanisms which are already available to all of us?

Mark Harper: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, certainly the Opposition Front Bench was desperately looking around for amendments that would not stop the Bill in its tracks, and this was about the best they could come up with. But it does not really add very much and is rather unnecessary, and, as I have said, many of the new clauses are rather repetitive, talking about reports and information about a whole raft of EU institutions, which will, of course, be covered in any event.

Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect, if not the intent, of the Opposition new clause would be to make all these matters justiciable and therefore bring the courts into the question of whether the Government’s reports were sufficient and, indeed, appropriate?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Once we put things into primary legislation and set out the nature and terms of the report, it will, as we have seen, be justiciable, and it will allow people to go to court and argue—they might be successful, they might not—that what the Government have brought forward is not adequate, and we will then have a continuation of the legal arguments that we have seen.

Clive Efford: Should not any Member of this House want to have as a minimum requirement access to information and opportunities at least equal to those of any Member of the European Parliament—surely no Member of this House can justify arguing for anything less?

Mark Harper: The point I was making—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was agreeing—is that there are already well-established mechanisms in this House for ensuring that information is brought before Members. Indeed, if I simply judge my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union by what they have done so far, it seems to me that they have been in this House frequently talking about Brexit. I fear that, by the end of this process, certainly the general public will be willing it to end as might hon. Members.

Chris Bryant: Is not one of the problems that, in recent years, motions have regularly been carried by the House and then been completely and utterly ignored by the Government? We need more than just a simple yes or no vote at the end of this process. We need to be able to scrutinise whatever deal emerges line by line. That is exactly what the European Parliament will be able to do, so why on earth should not we be able to do it too?

Mark Harper: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet, because I am about to turn away from my first point about the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front-Bench Members and to talk about the ones that I think could be much more damaging. Those include new clause 51, to which the hon. Gentleman has appended his name, and amendment 44.
In the Government’s amendment to the Opposition motion that was passed by the House on 7 December last year, the House agreed by 448 votes to 75 that the Government should indeed ensure that Parliament had the necessary information to scrutinise these matters properly. The instruction from the House also stated, however,
“that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 220.]
This is an arguable matter, but my contention is that the detail called for in new clause 51 on, among other things, the terms of proposed trade agreements and the proposed status of citizens are details that we would not want to disclose during our negotiations. For example, we would not wish to disclose whether tariffs were to be introduced or at what level. To do so would be to reveal our negotiating hand, which would be counter to the strongly expressed view of the House. If new clause 51 or amendment 44 are put to a vote, I strongly urge the House to vote against them.

Owen Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned new clause 51, which has been tabled in my name and those of other Opposition Members. Given that, before the referendum, the Government of which he was a part estimated the damage to the UK’s GDP of our leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms at around 7.7% of GDP or perhaps as much as £66 billion, would he not think it sensible for the Government to allay the country’s concerns if they now believe that the effects will be far less serious?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is picking out one aspect of his new clause. I was drawing out an aspect, to which I object, dealing with the effective disclosure of   our hand in the discussion on future trading arrangements. That would not be very sensible while we are carrying out negotiations with our trading partners.

Owen Smith: rose—

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman tempts me.

Owen Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being tempted. Another big area in which the Government were very clear, prior to the referendum, was the impact on trade of our leaving the EU, yet now we have no information on whether there will be more or less trade with the EU or with its constituent countries. Does it not seem sensible to tell the country whether we will have more trade with the EU or less?

Mark Harper: One of the flaws in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is that all the matters to which he refers are forecasts, estimates or guesses. A number of estimates and forecasts were made by both sides of the argument—leave and remain—before the referendum. I am not an expert on these matters, but it seems that not all of those forecasts and assessments have panned out exactly as people thought they would, so I really do not know why producing large documents full of equally erroneous forecasts would be helpful.

Hugo Swire: Has not this exchange demonstrated the foolhardiness of revealing our hand at this stage, given the fact that we cannot officially strike any kind of bilateral trade deal until we leave the EU? We must avoid talking our country down when every trade deal and every relationship we have—yes, even with the United States—will be of paramount importance. We should also do everything to resist the temptation to insult anyone from those countries who might be coming here.

Mark Harper: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That demonstrates the expertise that he acquired when he was a Foreign Office Minister.
Moving on to number three of my five points, new clause 56 refers to our withdrawal from the EEA and tries to make that into a separate argument. We are a member of the EEA as a result of being a member of the EU. Given that the EEA agreement talks about the free movement of goods and persons and means that we are susceptible to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, if we were to remain within the EEA, we would in the view of most members of the public effectively not have left the EU at all—the things that they were concerned about would still be in force. Indeed, things would have got worse because we would have no ability to influence—[Interruption.]

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: Let me just finish my point. We would have no ability to influence the rules that we would have to accept. Members who are talking about the EEA are simply trying to avoid the fact that we are going to be leaving the European Union; they are trying to remain in it by the back door.

Julian Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mark Harper: Let me give way to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who I think was first on his feet, and then to my hon. Friend.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Norway is not in the European Union, that Norway was cited by leading leave campaigners as an option that we could follow and that we could be like Norway and not within the European Union?

Mark Harper: I can confirm to the House that Norway is not a member of the European Union. That is indeed true. Part of the reason why I was on the remain side of the argument was that the Norway deal is not very good at all and not a model to be followed. My view was that—[Interruption.]

Heidi Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: Let me finish answering the point of the hon. Member for Ilford South and then I will of course take an intervention. I did promise to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) first, but I will then give way to the hon. Lady.
The two best options are either to be in the EU and accept everything that comes with that, but with the ability to shape the rules, or to leave and not be in the single market, not have free movement of people and not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Norway’s EEA model is poor, because it is subject to the free movement of people, it has to accept the jurisdiction of the Court and it has no right at all to influence any of the rules. It is up to the Norwegians what model they want to adopt, but it is not one that would work for us or that I would recommend to the House.

Julian Knight: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Constructs such as the EEA are effectively antechambers. They are entry points into the EU. It would be inappropriate, given our size and our economy, for a country such as ours that is exiting the EU to rest in something that is unsuitable.

Mark Harper: I could not have put it better myself. I will now give way to the hon. Lady.

Heidi Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he believes that Parliament should vote on whether we leave the single market and the EEA before that happens—if that is what the Government want to see through?

Mark Harper: I do not. I will put my cards on the table: I was on the remain side, but I am a democrat, so I accept the result. As a participant, I listened closely to the arguments in the referendum campaign and when David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), then Chancellor, were leading the remain campaign, they were clear that if the country voted to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market. Both David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton thought, erroneously as it turned out, that that argument would be the slam dunk. They thought that the British people would see that being in the single market was absolutely critical and therefore would vote to remain in the European Union.

Wes Streeting: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mark Harper: If I can finish my answer, I will of course take an intervention.
However, the British public did not agree with David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Therefore, it seems clear that the public accepted that we would be leaving the single market. Leading campaigners on the leave side made exactly the same point. I will now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

Kenneth Clarke: It is quite right that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor warned that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market, but my recollection is that some leave campaigners just dismissed that as “Project Fear”. I particularly recollect that the current Foreign Secretary was totally dismissive of that argument and said that we would retain full membership and full access to the market because Europe needed to sell us its Mercedes and prosecco wine. It is not true that everybody on the leave side acknowledged that we would put ourselves outside tariff and regulatory barriers.

Mark Harper: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that not everybody on the leave side made that argument. The good news for me is that I was not on the leave side of the argument—and neither was he—so I feel no obligation to defend any of the arguments made by anybody on that side of the campaign.
I specifically chose the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, because they were on my side of the argument, but I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who led the official leave campaign, made exactly that argument, which is why I referred to it.

Gisela Stuart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to the chair of the official leave campaign. Although many voices argued for leave, the official leave campaign, its chair and the co-chairs of its campaign committee made it very clear in public that voting to leave would mean leaving the single market.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, which rather proves my point. The British people’s decision in the referendum means leaving the EU, which means leaving the single market. That is the conclusion that the Prime Minister has drawn, and it is one that I support.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to move on to my fourth point, on the important issue of EU nationals. Given my experience as a former Immigration Minister, I have some questions, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the House.
First, I completely agree that it would be desirable to be able to put at rest the minds and concerns of EU nationals in the United Kingdom who are here lawfully and who contribute to our country, but it is also important to be able to put at rest the concerns and worries of British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. After all, the primary duty of the British Government is to look out for British citizens. That comes first, ahead of all else, and I fear that what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested—when he said that, if we cannot reach an early agreement, we should proceed anyway—might well put to rest the concerns of EU nationals in Britain, but would simply throw overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. Doing that would not secure their interests, and it would throw away our ability to do so.

Jo Stevens: Some 15% of the academic staff, 5% of students and 10% of research students at Cardiff University in my constituency are from the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant risk that those EU staff and their spouses will seek employment elsewhere, outside the UK, if they do not have certainty now from the Government? We would then lose all that intellectual capital.

Mark Harper: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in her statement today and on a number of other occasions, has made it clear that she wants to reach an early agreement, and has been seeking to do so, with our European partners. But, in leading our country, the Prime Minister has to look to the interests of British citizens, as well as to the interests of citizens from other EU countries who are here. She does not serve the interests of British citizens by putting the interests of EU nationals ahead of them.

Joanna Cherry: The right hon. Gentleman is courteous in giving way. I am a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, and a few weeks ago we heard evidence from several British nationals living in Spain, Germany, Italy and France. They were members of representative organisations for British nationals, and every single one of them said that they felt that the other member states would reciprocate if the UK Government made a unilateral guarantee of the rights of EU nationals living here. Has he taken that evidence into account?

Mark Harper: I have, and the hon. and learned Lady has now put it before the House, but the problem is that I have not seen any evidence to support that view. If I listened correctly to what the Prime Minister was saying, it sounds as though a number of European member state Governments are indeed of that view, but clearly more than one are not—or at least they are not now. Therefore, it is sensible to get this right.
There is another thing that Members of this House ought to be doing, and this picks up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are already several mechanisms through which EU nationals who have lived in the UK for some time can sort out their residency status on a permanent basis. Rather than scaremongering and whipping up  concern, hon. Members would do well to put that information in front of their constituents in order to reassure them.

Joanna Cherry: The point that these British nationals living abroad made was that the British Government put this matter on the table—they put the rights of these people at issue—so they should take the lead by guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, and then other member states would follow suit. Those are not my words but the words of British nationals living abroad. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to that?

Mark Harper: I go back to the premise of the hon. and learned Lady’s question; it was not the British Government who made this decision, as it was the decision of the British people—

Joanna Cherry: It is the same thing—

Mark Harper: No, with the greatest respect, it is not the same thing. These issues have arisen and there is a question about the rights of EU nationals and British citizens because the people of the United Kingdom decided that we were going to leave the EU. That is not a decision of the Government—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: If Members will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.

Andrew Tyrie: rose—

Mark Harper: I will give way to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, but then I must make some progress.

Andrew Tyrie: My right hon. Friend would agree, however, that other nationals should not be treated as bargaining chips, and I am sure he would also be aware that the Treasury Committee has heard a good deal of evidence to suggest that the failure to guarantee the rights of EU nationals is now beginning to damage the economy. Given that, and the overwhelming ethical case, does he not agree, on reflection, that the time has come just to protect those EU citizens’ rights?

Mark Harper: I completely agree on the value to the economy. I also agree on this being an urgent matter, and I heard the Prime Minister say exactly that this afternoon. If I may conclude my remarks about EU nationals, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) will see why I do not think precipitate action is very wise. It could open up a range of complexities which, far from putting people’s minds at rest and making things better, could make things worse.

Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and he has been in negotiations. If we put on the table the kind of deal we would expect the other 27 to offer to UK citizens, we would set the template of what we think the right deal is and set the right tone for the negotiations; this is a different matter from trade.

Mark Harper: I was listening carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and it sounds to me as though she and her Ministers are indeed talking to EU member states and trying to get this issue resolved. There is a two-stage process here: we need an agreement in principle by the UK Government with other EU member states—

Ian Blackford: rose—

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to intervene, but I need to finish replying to the right hon. Lady before I can take his intervention. I am also conscious of the fact that I have only one more point to make after I have finished my points about EU nationals, and I want to give other Members the chance to contribute to the debate. [Interruption.] I am giving way to take questions. This is a debate, and I cannot both make rapid progress and give way to Members, so let me just answer the point that the right hon. Lady made. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and her Ministers are indeed dealing with other European members and trying to get this issue resolved, but that is clearly not being entirely reciprocated by other members. The approach needs to be twofold: we need an agreement in principle that we want to guarantee those rights; but then there is also an awful lot of detail to be worked out. These matters are very complicated.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to what happened last weekend. As far as I can tell, looking from the outside, it seems to me that part of the reason for the mess the US Administration have got themselves into is that they produced an Executive order that was not very well thought through. They do not seem to have taken proper legal advice, so got themselves into trouble in the courts. There was an impact on British citizens, before the intervention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary resolved the matter. I do not want us to move precipitately without thinking it through.
I wish to give the House some examples that I think must be sorted out. First, the various amendments and new clauses refer to people who are lawfully resident in the United Kingdom under the existing treaties. People think that is straightforward, but it is actually quite complicated. Any EU national can come to Britain for any reason, for up to three months. If they want to stay here for longer than three months, they have to be either working, looking for work, self-sufficient or a student. If they are self-sufficient or a student, they are here lawfully only if they have comprehensive health insurance. We know from those people who have been trying to regularise their status, following the sensible advice from the right hon. Member for Leicester East, that many do not have that comprehensive health insurance so technically are not here lawfully at all. When we use these phrases, we need to be clear who we are granting the rights to, because people will not be aware of the complexity. If we are to give people clarity and certainty, we have to be clear about what we are doing.
Secondly, the national health service and healthcare are topical issues. We currently have a set of reciprocal arrangements with our European Union partners for people who are in those countries. We do not do the logging, administration and collecting of the money as well as they do. We want to ensure that that will work when we have left the European Union. I do not know where we will end up on that, but it is important.
Thirdly, in an intervention earlier I alluded to a point that must be thought about, because if we act hastily, we will come to regret it. At the end of March last year—these are the latest figures I was able to find—4,222 EU nationals were imprisoned in British jails. Under the EU prisoner transfer framework directive, we have the ability to transfer them when they are in prison, and when they come out we can start to take action to revoke their status in the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that in acting now we do not act hastily and make our ability to remove those people from the United Kingdom more difficult. I fear that the new clauses and amendments we are considering would not adequately deal with that issue, as was reflected in the answer from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.
Finally, the Bill does one simple thing: it gives the Prime Minister the lawful authority to start the negotiation process. That is all it does. The Government have been generous in making available the time to debate that matter. The Bill does not need to be improved or amended in any way. I do not know which amendments and new clauses will be pressed to a vote, but I hope that I have set out some reasons why several of them should be rejected. If any of them are pressed, I urge the House to reject them.

Harriet Harman: I rise to support new clause 57, which was tabled in my name and the names of other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, with the support of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.
This is about 3 million people and their families—EU citizens whose future here has been thrown into doubt by the decision in June that the UK should leave the EU. There is nothing about the cloud of uncertainty that they now live under that is their own fault. If we accept the new clause, we can put their minds at rest and let them look to the future.
Members on both sides of the House will know the people whose lives we are talking about. Some, such as those from France and Spain, have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work in and are part of their local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported and their families divided because we have decided to leave the EU. Let us put their minds at rest and assure them and their families that our decision to leave the EU will not change their right to be here. Their anxiety is palpable. We have all seen it in our advice surgeries. One of my constituents, an Italian woman, has been here for 30 years. She cannot work anymore because she is ill, and her residency rights are now at risk. People from countries that have more recently joined the EU, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, are working in sectors that could not manage without them—in agriculture, care homes and our tourism industry. Employers in food production are already reporting more difficulty in getting the workers they need. That is happening now.

Jeremy Lefroy: New clause 57 was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My constituent who is a consultant paediatric surgeon from Sweden approached me over the new year in a state of distress because he was not sure about his future status —this is someone who performs really valuable services  for the people of the west midlands and at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. He had been advised that he should seek the services of an immigration lawyer, and that advice had come from his trust.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There was plenty of other such evidence that came before us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is a very valued member. This ongoing uncertainty around the status of EU residents here is allowing greater exploitation of vulnerable EU workers. Last week, appearing before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Margaret Beels, chair of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, said that she is receiving evidence that gangmasters are telling fearful EU workers that they cannot complain about not being paid or about being subjected to unsafe conditions because if they do they will be deported as they no longer have the right to be here. We are not whipping up fears, but understanding fears and seeking to address them. It is no good, I am afraid, issuing warm words; people need certainty. They work in every part of our private sector. They contribute to our creative industries; they are artists and musicians. They work in our public services. Anyone who has been in hospital recently will very likely have awoken to find a Spanish or a Portuguese nurse at their bedside. If anyone has an older relative in a care home, they are likely to see them being cared for by someone from eastern Europe.

Hugo Swire: I have considerable sympathy with the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making. We disagree on the fundamental point, which is that we should not do something unilateral here in the United Kingdom before we have agreement on our own residents in Spain and France and elsewhere, because we will potentially be undermining their position. No doubt they will be feeling the sense of vulnerability that she has just articulated about those living here.

Harriet Harman: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s conclusion.

Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we also heard evidence in the Home Affairs Committee from groups representing the Polish community and other eastern European communities? They said that they had seen an increase in hate crime. They also said that extremists were exploiting the uncertainty and attacking people with phrases such as “Go home” and “Leave the country”. They said that the uncertainty that EU citizens felt made it harder for them to deal with these awful hate crimes.

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Philippa Whitford: I am sure that many MPs in this Chamber have also had constituents from the EU who have tried to seek security by applying for permanent residency, but who have been turned down and received “prepare to leave” letters. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned comprehensive health insurance. There is no such thing. A person cannot get 100% comprehensive health insurance. Previously, the NHS was recognised for giving health cover. Why can this House not give these people security at this end, and not threaten to throw them out?

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.
It is not just EU nationals and their families who are worried about the uncertainty hanging over them; so are the employers for whom they work. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they seek work elsewhere for fear that they will not be allowed to stay? It is not as if we are training them ourselves. With the cuts to bursaries, the number of student nurses has fallen by 23% this year.

Barry Sheerman: I recently had a conversation with the chair and chief executive of the trust in my constituency, who said that Huddersfield Royal infirmary could not operate if it were not for the young Spanish nurses. I also spoke to people at the London School of Economics who said that if the Europeans, who are good at maths and science, were to leave, 20% of the workforce of universities would go back home.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot say that we welcome them here to do such work, but use them as a bargaining chip in European negotiations.

Dawn Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with her time. Constituents have come to my surgeries in tears, fretting about what will happen to them and their jobs. Does she agree that it is not a British value to use people as bargaining chips in the negotiations?

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

John Penrose: rose—

Harriet Harman: I will give way just once more.

John Penrose: The right hon. Lady is sending out a powerful message about British values and—this point is shared across the House—about giving certainty to EU nationals living here. May I press her, though, on the need to be careful not to send a message to British nationals living in the rest of the EU that they are somehow less important? Their concerns are equally valid and severely felt, and we are equally worried about what is happening to them. Are we not going to address or take account of any of those issues today?

Harriet Harman: We simply cannot trade one off against the other like that. This is not an economic trade negotiation.
The new clause is quite simple. It would provide that the rights of residence of EU citizens who were lawfully resident here before the referendum decision on 23 June remain unchanged. We need the clause in the Bill because the Government have been sending out mixed messages, and the Prime Minister did so again in her statement today. On the one hand, she says that anyone who is lawfully here has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, she says that she cannot commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the negotiations.
It is in no way right to use the lives of 3 million people and their families as a bargaining chip. They and their families are not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a human shield as we battle it  out in Europe for our UK citizens in other countries. We must decide what is fair and right for EU citizens here, and then do it. I thought we were supposed to be taking back control. If the Government reject the new clause, EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their rights to continue to live here could be snatched away if our Government do not get what they want for our UK citizens living in each of the other countries in the European Union.
The new clause is not only the right thing to do as a matter of principle; it is legally necessary. The Government cannot bargain away people’s human rights. The right to family life is guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. If the Government bargained them away, EU citizens living here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under article 8. If even 10% of those here did that, there would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way that our court system could begin to cope with that. I hope that the Government accept the new clause. If not, I urge hon. Members of all parties to support it in the Lobby.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was in the Chamber a short time ago, made an important point about this new clause. When imposing legal requirements and duties on anybody—let alone the Prime Minister—one has be sure that those requirements are capable of being realised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and other hon. Members have dealt comprehensively with the difficulties that arise from the part of the new clause that mentions laying
“periodic reports…on the progress of the negotiations”.
I think that case has been made.
Let me move on to the next part. The real problem is subsection (c), which would
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have had an enormous amount of trouble, over and over again, about documents that are marked as “LIMITÉ”. Although such documents are distributed, Parliaments other than the European Parliament are not allowed to refer to them because they are of a confidential nature. I have made it quite clear that I think some of this is overdone. However, to try to impose a legal duty on the Prime Minister to undertake to break the rules relating to limité documents is stretching a point to absurdity.

Clive Efford: I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) earlier: should he not be arguing, as somebody who has spent a great deal of his time in Parliament scrutinising the European Union, for Members of this House to have rights of scrutiny that are at least equal to those held by Members of the European Parliament?

Bill Cash: I have enormous sympathy with that. In point of fact, the Secretary of State for Brexit gave evidence in the House of Lords, where, as I understand it, he made it abundantly clear that any document that would be made available to the European Parliament  and its committees would, indeed, be made available to this House. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but I believe such a measure to be unnecessary because an undertaking has already been given by the Secretary of State.

Hugo Swire: New clause 3(c) would
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
Given my hon. Friend’s wide experience, for how long does he think the contents of those documents would remain confidential if they were made available for wide parliamentary scrutiny?

Bill Cash: Well, they certainly would not. That is really the purpose of the limité restriction. Although I have reservations about the restriction in certain cases, I can think of a number of instances in which it is absolutely vital that the documents remain confidential. If there were any breach of that confidentiality —there would have to be an undertaking by the Prime Minister that she would release it—it could gum up the works to such an extent on matters of intelligence, security and all sorts of things that we would actually end up not receiving any limité documents at all.
With great respect, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who led from the Opposition Front Bench, may or may not have been dealing with these matters for some time, and I will not criticise him for that—[Interruption.] No, this is a perfectly fair point. All I am saying is that, in drafting this, if we end up with something that does not work and we have to comply with new clause 3 (a), (b) and (c) to make it work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, we would end up in the courts—and there would be a judicial review, believe me. It naturally follows that the new clause is simply nonsense, so it cannot be brought into effect. That is all I need to say about it.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friends and I have also tabled some amendments. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss and debate the Bill over the coming days, although we have had been given very little time in which to do so. It is fair to say that this is not scrutiny that the Government either welcomed or encouraged. It is good to have at least a short opportunity to debate this issue, although that has more to do with the Government’s confidence in their own arguments and their ability to deliver a better deal with our EU partners than the one we have at present than it does with a scrutiny process. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming to this Chamber just to have a vote on article 50 in the first place.
On Thursday, we got the White Paper as the Secretary of State was getting to his feet, which was pretty disrespectful of the entire House. That failed to put my mind at ease—I am sure it failed to put the minds of many other MPs in the Chamber at ease—about the way in which the Government are conducting this process. The White Paper is something of a metaphor for the entire Brexit process; it was rushed, without time for proper scrutiny, and it did not even get all its facts right, which is quite remarkable, given the time the Government had to prepare it.
This Brexit process could not be more important. It is one of the most important processes anybody in this House will ever take part in—it is certainly more important than a debate about wigs or the other crucial issues Government Members want to debate. This process will have an impact on us all and on all our constituents, given the health of the economy, and the jobs and taxes that are generated as a result.
Against some fairly stiff competition, some people have argued that the craziest political decision of 2016 was the one to elect Donald Trump President—incidentally, my colleagues and I welcome the Speaker’s announcement today. However, while the good people of the United States of America have the ability, should they wish to do so, to reverse the decision they made in November, there is no likelihood that we will be able to reverse the decision we made any time soon. Although four years’ time might seem a long way away for many in the United States, the mistakes made by the Government here, and any lack of scrutiny as a result, will be felt down the generations by policy makers in this place.
Given that this is such a big decision, our ability to have any meaningful scrutiny is woeful. Regardless of the vote, the role of Parliament is to scrutinise the work of Government. That is the entire point of our sitting here and having a Parliament in the first place.
I remind Conservative Members that the SNP won the election earlier this year with 47% of the vote. [Hon. Members: “Last year.”] Actually, the Holyrood election took place this year. That tells us all we need to know about the attention they pay to these things. We won the vote with 47%, but in 2015, the Conservatives won the election with 36% of the vote, and I am particularly pleased to say that Scotland dragged down their UK average by some considerable degree.
However, the role of Opposition parties, be it in Holyrood or in this place, is to hold the Government to account for the enormity of their decisions, which impact on each and every one of us. The process of leaving the European Union will involve one of the greatest upheavals since this Parliament came into existence in 1801. We should be given a lot more time to consider the implications for our constituents, the economy and our European partners. That is why SNP Members will back any moves to give Parliament greater scrutiny over this process.
That scrutiny is all the more important because of the lack of detail provided by members of the Vote Leave campaign—an act of irresponsibility by Members who were in the Government previously and by Members who are in the Government at present. Significant questions were left unanswered during the debate on the referendum, and since Vote Leave did not bother giving us the details, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ask for those details.
One question is: will we stay in the single market? The Prime Minister’s speech obviously differs from the Conservative party manifesto, on which she and other Conservative Members were elected. Will it be for Scotland to decide its immigration numbers? How much extra cash is the NHS getting? We deserve answers to all these questions before article 50 is triggered. Who is accountable for the promises that were made? I have not received an answer so far, and I have not heard other Members receive one.
A number of my colleagues will want to touch on the point about EU nationals, and it is easy to see why we back the proposals to give them the right to remain. We are richer financially and culturally as a result of European nationals calling Scotland and other parts of the UK their home.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making some very valid points. Will we not also be judged on the leadership we give and on our humanity? Those EU citizens who are here are our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues, and we have a duty to stand by their rights. The Prime Minister must send a clear message that those who are here are welcome to stay. We must remove the uncertainty, and do it now.

Stephen Gethins: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. I pay due respect to the work he has done for the Brain family and others in his constituency in some of the disgraceful immigration cases we have seen. These EU nationals have chosen to make the UK their home and Scotland their home. They make this a better place in which to live and work. It is a no-brainer that we should give them the certainty they deserve.

Thomas Tugendhat: The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent and well-structured argument, and I broadly agree with many of the points he is making, but would he not agree that this is really a Mexican stand-off with water pistols? There is no realistic chance that any signatory of the European convention on human rights—the United Kingdom is one; in fact, we drafted much of it—will kick out anybody. We are not going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom, and nor are UK citizens in other parts of the European Union going to be expelled. Would it not be better for the House to recognise that the position of these EU nationals is not at risk? Would we not be much better off comforting those who are in doubt, rather than spreading fear?

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The ECHR is under threat from this very Government, so does it not make sense to come into the Lobby with us to support the right of EU nationals to live and work here? I look forward to his standing up for what he has just said and joining us in the Lobby.

Thomas Tugendhat: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Gethins: No, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman, because he probably has a lot more influence on the Government Benches than I do—that is one thing I will give him. The Government are desperately in need of friends and good will. If we benefit financially from EU nationals being here, and if our society is richer for their being here, we want to keep them regardless—they are not bargaining chips, but that is something the Government seem to ignore. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips, I would encourage him to join us in the Lobby and give them the certainty they need and deserve.

Roger Mullin: The situation is even worse. While accepting what the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said, pitting Elke Weston, an EU national in my constituency,  against my friend Tracy de Jong Eglin in the Netherlands does not in any way give them succour; it makes their situations worse.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am not surprised, given the amount of hard work he has done for EU nationals in his constituency.
If Conservative Members are so confident in the ECHR, which they now promise us they are, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting against his own Government. I do not trust Conservative Members entirely, but if there is not a problem under the ECHR, he and his colleagues will have absolutely no problem joining us in the Lobby.
We will debate the devolved process in the next tranche of proposals, but let me just say this about scrutiny. All of this will have an impact on the devolution process, be it in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If Ministers respect the devolution process, they should have no problem with the additional scrutiny that comes with it. Right now we are in a situation where the unelected House of Lords will have a greater say on this process than the elected Scottish Parliament and other devolved legislatures. No Government, regardless of their colour, have a monopoly on wisdom. The whole point of having a Parliament is that we scrutinise, with the courage of our convictions, and this place makes a contribution. If this Government are confident in what they are doing—or know what they are doing and have any kind of a plan—they should welcome scrutiny in the Chamber here and then elsewhere in these islands, because fundamentally that scrutiny will provide better legislation. On something of such enormity that we are about to undertake, they have a responsibility for it to be scrutinised as much as possible.
Let us not underestimate the impact of the decision that we are about to make this week. It will impact on our rights, on our economy, and on each and every one of us. We will encourage the strengthening of anything that increases scrutiny of this process. The Government’s record so far has not been good. I am not heartened by what I have seen, with a White Paper that was rushed out and could not even get its facts right. We therefore owe a debt of responsibility to people across the UK—and, indeed, beyond—to have more scrutiny than we are promised and more than we have at present.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the next colleague, let me say that it will be obvious to the Committee that a great many people wish to speak. There are in excess of 50 new clauses and amendments to be discussed, and we have two hours and 45 minutes left to do so. I hope that Members will be courteous to others and keep their remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate that these are complicated matters, and it is good to have interventions and proper debate and discussion, but let us avoid repetition and rhetoric for its own sake.

Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mrs Laing. It is quite obvious that the programme motion will not allow for proper debate by the vast majority of Members. I have never known a debate on any European issue be  given such limited time before. Has anyone approached you and asked to re-address the programme motion so that we can have the sort of sensible, protracted discussion of these issues that we have had almost to excess on previous occasions such as the debates on the Maastricht treaty?

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Mrs Laing. When I considered the Government’s programme motion, it seemed to me that for a two-clause Bill, two days—extraordinarily—on Second Reading and three full days of protected time to allow us to sit late where there are statements was, if anything, an excess of generosity.

Eleanor Laing: The former Chief Whip makes a very good point. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that I would expect a former Chief Whip to make.
Let me set the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) at rest on two points. First, although there are in excess of 50 amendments and new clauses, some of them address the same points as others, so we are not addressing more than 50 separate points of debate. The other point that I draw to his attention is that the House has voted for and supported the programme motion, and that is not a matter for me. I am sure that I can now rely on Sir Hugo Swire to address the Committee briefly and pertinently.

Hugo Swire: I shall seek not to detain the Committee for too long so as not to repeat many of the arguments that hon. Friends and colleagues have made and will no doubt make again and again throughout this evening.
I wish to talk about the two new clauses that have dominated proceedings to date, one rather less emotional than the other. The unemotional one, I would submit, is new clause 3. We have talked about parliamentary oversight of the negotiations and heard the word “scrutiny” bandied around across the Chamber. I sometimes get the impression that some in this Chamber would seek to scrutinise every single line, cross every “t” and dot every “i” of the Government’s negotiating position. It would be interesting to conduct a straw poll as to how many Members in this Committee have ever taken part in a proper negotiation—a commercial negotiation—that requires, at times, one to keep one’s cards close to hand before declaring them. It is impossible, irresponsible and unthinkable to have to negotiate this in public, and particularly so to insert clauses such that anything discussed must be reported back to this House at intervals of
“no more than two months”—
eight weeks—each and every time. The new clause does not say what Parliament might then do if it does not like what the Government are reporting back. Do Members want a vote on it? We have heard about the possibility of legal involvement—judicial review. This is wholly unrealistic and undesirable.
Paragraph (c) says:
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
I have already alluded to that today. There are ways in this House whereby Privy Counsellors and so forth can see sensitive information, but it is wholly unrealistic to  think that the whole House would be able to examine and scrutinise confidential documents without their leaking pretty quickly on to Twitter or Facebook, or into the national newspapers. How can one possibly conduct any sort of negotiations, particularly as difficult and sensitive as these are set to be, in the glare of publicity, revealing confidential documents to each and every Member of this House—and no doubt there would be calls to do the same for the devolved Administrations? That would be completely crazy.
With regard to new clause 6, on the other hand, I have considerable sympathy with those who have spoken about the uncertainty surrounding the status of EU nationals in this country as these negotiations begin. It is unsettling for a lot of these people. It is true that they contribute enormously to society—to our public sector, including the health sector, our agricultural businesses, and so forth. We need them here, and I do have considerable sympathy with their predicament.

Andrew Murrison: I entirely agree that we need to sort this out very early on. Indeed, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said precisely that only a short while ago. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) agree that part of the issue is the unwillingness of some of our interlocutors to engage in meaningful discussion prior to the triggering of article 50? This is surely a matter that can be dealt with early on, but that requires them to engage immediately and not to delay until the triggering of article 50.

Hugo Swire: I do agree, because this cuts both ways. It is cheap politicking to talk about bargaining chips—I do not think anyone is considering that—but this does require an early resolution. I was heartened when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today that she intended to address it early on, but it has to be a negotiation between the other countries of the EU and us. It is just as important to us, as British parliamentarians—as the British Government—to defend the rights of British citizens living overseas. There are a lot of them, and not all of them are particularly contributing to the society they are in. A lot of them are retired, so they are even more vulnerable, in a sense, than many of the EU workers who are here actively working. It is the first duty of this House to look after British citizens, wherever they may be, while also being aware that we have a duty to EU nationals at the same time.
It would be completely wrong in terms of our negotiating position to declare unilaterally that all EU nationals can, up to a certain date, continue to live here without fear or favour. That would be unwise until such time as we can extract a similar agreement from the other countries of the EU where British nationals have lived, sometimes for very many years.

Kenneth Clarke: I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend agree in ringing tones with what everybody has said so far, namely that absolutely nobody in this House wishes to cast any doubt on the right of EU nationals to continue living lawfully here if they are lawfully here now. Apparently, the only reason for his holding back—despite the fact that he entirely shares the sentiments of Opposition Members—is that he fears that if we declare that a Pole who has been living here for years can stay here, we will have thrown away our card and British  nationals will be expelled by the Government of some unknown country. I have heard nobody suggest that any such country exists.
We have a pedantic problem of whether we can raise the matter before the process has started. If we just cleared the position of our EU nationals now, it would put the utmost pressure on every other country to clarify the thing as well. No one is going to take any reprisals against our British nationals.

Hugo Swire: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend is right. He has not always been right about everything, although he has been right about quite a lot. He and I were on the same side of the debate, and I know that he regrets, as I do, the fact that in all the discussions about migration and immigration during the campaign, some rather irresponsible points were made repeatedly about who would be able to come here from the Commonwealth, when there was absolutely no suggestion that that was behind anyone’s thinking. However, I fundamentally disagree with him in that I do not think that we should do anything unilateral before we get an agreement about the rights of British nationals living in the rest of the EU.

Shailesh Vara: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that if the matter is as simple as some make out—if it is just a question of us making a simple declaration—why have the other 27 countries of the European Union not said that our citizens who are living overseas will be fine, and that there will be no repercussions for them? The fact that those countries will not make that commitment says something, does it not?

Hugo Swire: It may do, or it may not. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said, there is no evidence to suggest that a single country would not behave in a good way. But there is absolutely no evidence that they will all behave in a good way; we simply do not know, because we have not yet had that conversation. Until we have had that debate and secured an agreement that similar rights will be granted to British citizens living in other EU countries, we should not move to allow every single EU national who lives here to continue doing so.

Heidi Allen: If the cynics among us genuinely believe that there could be countries out there that are not prepared to do this, should we not now, more than ever, lead by example?

Hugo Swire: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier when the Prime Minister was asked about the matter. The Prime Minister gave a very strong suggestion that securing such a deal was at the top of her negotiating priorities. At the end of the day, it is an agreement—it is a deal—and it has to be negotiated. I do not think that we would be right unilaterally to declare anything.

Angela Eagle: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a unilateral declaration would undo some of the damage that was done by the “list of foreign workers” stuff that came out of the Tory conference in Birmingham? That shocked a lot of our European partners and hardened their views against us. Surely, a unilateral declaration might help.

Hugo Swire: I agree with the hon. Lady that language and sensitivity are incredibly important. We are dealing with families, and with people who are married to EU citizens. We are dealing with people who live here and who do not know whether they have a future here. That is why we have to resolve the matter very early on. I have considerable sympathy, as I have said, with many people who have spoken about the contribution that EU nationals make. I very much hope that we can reach an agreement that will satisfy all who are here but, equally, I think that our first duty is to look after our citizens abroad.

Seema Malhotra: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the issues faced by British citizens whose partners are EU nationals, but does he agree that we are also talking about children? I have seen children in my constituency raise real concerns about whether they will be able to study in the same school, and about where their future will be. They do not know the country that their parents came from, and they are British in every sense of the word. This is causing huge uncertainty. We can tackle this, and we can do it this week.

Hugo Swire: We can all cite examples from our surgeries of individual cases, but I am not sure that to do so contributes to the greater argument. We need to get a policy in place that covers the whole thing. That can only be achieved by the Prime Minister making it a priority, as she has suggested she will, and getting an agreement from the other member states that involves the reciprocity we need for our British people living abroad.

Sarah Wollaston: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about the fate of British citizens living in the European Union, but I agree with others who have said that, surely, a goodwill gesture would be a really positive thing for this Government to make. Two of my constituents are a married couple who have been living together in this country for 30 years, and I consider the wife to be as British as anybody else. We should make it absolutely clear that it is inconceivable that this couple should be separated, and that their children should be left with separated parents.

Hugo Swire: Indeed, and no doubt there are similar examples of British people in not-dissimilar situations in Spain, France and elsewhere. We need to ensure that their rights are recognised as well.
I am not going to continue in this vein, because others wish to contribute. I have made my point. I have sympathy with the view that EU nationals contribute a lot to the economy. I hope that there is an early agreement that allows them to stay and to continue to work here. Equally, any such agreement, to my way of thinking, has to be part of a wider agreement that assures the future of British nationals living in other EU countries.

Hilary Benn: I rise to support new clauses 3 and 57. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for their speeches. The one thing I would add to the forceful case made by my right hon. and learned Friend  is this: when the Exiting the European Union Committee took evidence from representatives of Brits living abroad, one might have expected them to make the argument that has just been advanced, but they said the opposite. They said that Britain should give a unilateral commitment now, because they felt that doing so would ease the process of negotiation.

Richard Fuller: I was not at that Committee hearing, and I am quite interested to know whether evidence was taken from ambassadors of EU countries about their Governments’ positions as part of the inquiry.

Hilary Benn: No, we have not taken evidence from ambassadors, but we have heard what has been said from the Government Dispatch Box, namely that—from memory—almost all member states are up for this, apart from one or two. We do not yet know who the one or two are, and I hope that they will change their minds so that we can make progress.
I want to address the arguments we have heard thus far in relation to new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander)—she is no longer in her place—asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) whether we should be able to have a vote on certain aspects of the nature of our withdrawal. He said no, because during the referendum campaign it was made clear by leading participants what would happen if we voted to leave, and therefore it is gospel and we cannot argue with it. That is a very interesting argument. On that basis, the NHS will be getting £350 million a week, because that, it was said, would be the consequence of a leave vote—but I will leave that to one side.
The right hon. Gentleman’s central argument, which he made at the beginning of his speech, was to ask what new clause 3 added. I say to him sincerely that it adds accountability. It has been argued that the new clause is unnecessary because the Government are already doing what it would require. If that is true, I would ask why there is a problem with the Government accepting it.
The argument was made that the Government would be forced to reveal all sorts of stuff. All that the new clause says is that the Prime Minister
“shall give an undertaking to…lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports”.
The content of those reports will be for the Government to determine. There is nothing in the new clause about forcing the Government to reveal their hand. When it comes to getting in English the documents that the European Commission is giving to the European Parliament —probably in English, while we still have MEPs, and in the other languages of the European Union—surely there cannot be any argument about that at all. It is entirely sensible.
On the point about confidential documents, I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State when I was first elected as the Chair of the Select Committee, and he replied to me in a letter that
“negotiations will be fast moving and will often cover sensitive material, so we will need to find the right ways of engaging Parliament.”
I welcomed that reply. All that new clause 3 says is that the Prime Minister shall
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
The arrangements are for the Government to propose. Given the extent to which Brussels is a very leaky place and the fact that we will be negotiating with 27 other member states, I cannot help making the point that I suspect we will find out very shortly after the meeting has concluded where the negotiations have got to, so the Government’s arrangements will be to advise us all to buy certain newspapers, in which one will be able to read what was discussed during the course of the afternoon and evening.

Bill Cash: The main point I was making, and I stand by it, is that new clause 3 imposes a legal obligation, enforceable by judicial review, on the Prime Minister effectively—and not just effectively, but actually and legally—to break the confidentiality imposed by, for example, limité documents. As I have said, I do not always subscribe to such degrees of confidentiality, but that is a personal view. The fact is that there is confidentiality, and it is a legal obligation.

Hilary Benn: I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters, that we know the Commission, in respect of trade negotiations, made arrangements with the European Parliament for certain documents to be made available, including in rooms where people could go and read them but could not take them away. The new clause is asking the Government to find a way of making this work in a way that is consistent, as of course it has to be, with any legal obligations, but confidentiality does not seem to me to be a very strong argument.
The argument that the new clause would make it all justiciable does not seem very strong either. Frankly, on that basis we might as well all go home tonight and never come back because Parliament legislates, and when Parliament legislates people can go to the courts and seek to suggest that the way in which the legislation is being implemented is not correct. That is not an argument against new clause 3, but against Parliament doing its job.
Having listened to speeches made by Conservative Members, I would gently say to the Minister of State, who is a reasonable man, that I hope he will not get up and repeat the arguments we have heard on new clause 3. Frankly, it is really simple and sensible stuff to help Parliament to do its job. On the frequency of reporting, as the Minister will know, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) suggested every two months, the Secretary of State got up and said that that might be a rather modest objective. If it is a modest objective, I really do not see how the Government can oppose it.

Alberto Costa: I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes. I have been wrestling with this matter for months, and in particular I have wrestled with it over the course of the weekend. This matter affects my constituents in South Leicestershire—and not just them—many of whom have come to see me to explain the problems, for example about children at school, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members.
I was the son of Italian immigrants in Glasgow in the 1970s, and I remember how it felt to be the only son of an immigrant in a classroom full of Scottish people. I do not want any EU national child across the United Kingdom to feel the way that I felt at times in school in the 1970s. However, there is more than simply anecdotal evidence that the situation now caused by Brexit is affecting the wellbeing of families. Such concerns have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), a fellow east midlands Member for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect. As I have argued with colleagues in the Chamber—we should be saying it far more loudly—EU nationals have contributed an enormous amount to the success and wellbeing of our United Kingdom, as did my parents over 50 years. I want to hear Members say that daily.
It was often said during the EU referendum that there was perhaps a cost consequence to having the 3 million-plus people from every one of the member states who have integrated here. I always believed that that was utter rubbish. We have benefited as a country by having immigrants come into the United Kingdom. The fact is that we will continue to benefit, because when all of this is over, we will still continue to have EU migrants coming into this country. The difference will be that this Parliament and Government—Conservative, Labour or otherwise—will determine the immigration rules. I cannot possibly foresee a situation where a competent British Government would attempt to reduce immigration to levels that would damage our economy. That leads me to a point made in a newspaper recently by an hon. Friend of mine about a promise made in the Conservative manifesto that we have not kept and cannot keep. We cannot get immigration down to the tens of thousands without damaging our economy.
However, I have decided to vote against the amendment on this matter. As I said at the outset, I have wrestled with this decision, because it affects my family personally. I will explain why I have decided to do this. Ultimately, it is because the deal that will be reached with the EU will be not just legal, but also political. It will be about personalities: about how the Prime Minister and her team get on with the other side.
Had I been Prime Minister last July, I might well have taken a different decision. However, I made a comment to the Prime Minister today in which I made it very clear that I am putting my entire trust in her and her Ministers to honour the promise that they are giving to the country about getting an early deal. I said to the leader of my party that it would be
“a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.”
I believe that she will get a reciprocal deal that benefits citizens from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales who live in other EU member states, and that protects my own family and friends, my own constituents and other EU nationals across the United Kingdom.
That is why I will vote against the amendment. Ultimately, it is a political matter, and it is for the Prime Minister to demonstrate her leadership and negotiating skills in getting this right, and coming back to the Dispatch Box within months—I repeat, within months—of triggering article 50 with an early deal on which we can all agree and for which we can thank her, that will be to the benefit of all our constituents living abroad and the benefit of EU nationals living in our constituencies.

Heidi Allen: I am just curious. I support the Prime Minister’s intentions and most definitely her sincerity in aiming to achieve such a deal, but does my hon. Friend agree that if that moment does not come as soon as she would like, she should review the idea of unilaterally offering EU citizens their rights and just put everybody out of their misery, because that is the right thing to do?

Alberto Costa: Again, I repeat the comment I made to the Prime Minister that it would be
“a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.”
She must come back to the Dispatch Box early on with such a deal.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the conclusion that he has reached. The other thing the Prime Minister demonstrated when she was Home Secretary is her attention to detail. As I tried to set out for the House, this is actually a more complex matter than it at first appears. It is not just that the Prime Minister needs to get the principle right; she and her Ministers and officials need to get the detail right to ensure not only that my hon. Friend’s family and others like them have security now, but that there are no unforeseen consequences for them in the future. I think that he has made the right decision.

Alberto Costa: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, but a promise has been made about an early agreement, notwithstanding the complexities of the matter. As a lawyer—I am a former corporate lawyer—I know that when my clients came to me asking for me to negotiate, I had to offer solutions to problems. If I did not get the deals that my clients wanted, I would not have been used frequently by those very clients. It will be a mark of our leader, our Prime Minister, if she gets the early deal that she is promising our country, and that is why I am supporting her this evening.

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman has obviously made a personal decision on this matter. He uses the analogy of being a lawyer and going to negotiate a deal, but does he not accept that the Prime Minister could just settle and give every EU national in our country right now the right to be here, without any further delay? There is an alternative attitude that would also deliver for his client, is there not?

Alberto Costa: As I mentioned, had I been Prime Minister in July, I might have started the whole process very differently.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about the consequences of not getting an early deal on this matter. The consequence would be a tsunami of litigation against the Government. Politically, therefore, an early deal must be brought to this House. That is why I trust the Prime Minister to get that early deal.
The role of Parliament is also a political matter to which Ministers should give serious consideration. The European Parliament has a substantive role in the negotiations that we do not have. Some would say that the primary reason for that is that it represents 27 other nations, whereas we represent one sovereign country as the British Parliament. However, if we hear comments from the media, reporting on what European parliamentarians   are being told about what our ministerial negotiating team are saying in Europe, it would become farcical if our Government did not report back to us.

Hilary Benn: Exactly.

Alberto Costa: I do not see a need to force the Government to do that. It would be politically impossible for the Government to function responsibly and appropriately without giving us at least the same information that we will be receiving from the media and the European Parliament. Again, it is a matter of politics and we should not bind the hands of the Government in a statutory manner that could be justiciable. That is why I trust my Government to come back to the House with sensible updates, no different from the updates that the European Parliament receives, so that we can continue to debate and discuss the matter.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is on the right side of all these arguments, but he is a very trusting man. Does he not realise that the background to all this is that when the European Commission started negotiating the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, it took exactly the same line that the Government are now taking—that it could not possibly disclose any of these things as it would compromise the negotiations? The fact is that the European Parliament now gets the information because it was less trusting and is made of sterner stuff than this Parliament has so far proved to be. I do not think that that is in accordance with our parliamentary traditions.

Alberto Costa: I respect the judgments and comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. However, I read his recent article about his own thoughts on his first term in Parliament and how he would have dealt with a similar matter. I will leave it at that.
I have listened carefully to the valuable and honourable comments that have been made on this matter, particularly by Opposition Members, but I will support my Government and I will hold my Government to account in a way that I never see Opposition MPs from Scotland holding their Government to account.

Chris Leslie: It was touching to hear the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) talk about his hope and aspiration that EU nationals will be allowed to remain indefinitely, and of course he is right on that, yet he betrayed a little bit of fear of offending his Front Benchers were he to go so far as wanting to enshrine those rights in the Bill.
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for new clause 57. It is important and would provide the assurances that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people residing in this country require. I tabled a similar new clause—new clause 14—which I hope the Committee will support.
The context of this debate, for which more than 50 substantive amendments on distinct and specific issues of great importance have been tabled, is the contrast between the desire of Members to raise these issues and the nonsensical four hours in which they have to be considered. There is something like four minutes for each topic. Nothing could demonstrate  more clearly to Members in the House of Lords how important it is that they do the due diligence on this Bill that the House of Commons will clearly not be able to do.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our time: the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. Let us just remind ourselves what we are talking about. It is a Bill that, although it may contain just a simple clause or two, will have phenomenal ramifications for all of our constituents. If we fail to address those in proper detail, we are failing in our duty to scrutinise the Government in a serious way.

Stella Creasy: Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty, 30 days were allocated to discuss the issues in the House of Commons alone? Five days is a very poor comparison.

Chris Leslie: My hon. Friend is completely right. This Bill is far more important than all those treaties wrapped together, because it is about withdrawing from the European Union.
What made the situation worse was the White Paper we had from the Government. Let us not forget that it came the day after the vote on Second Reading. That was pretty shocking and quite contemptuous of the rights that the House of Commons should have. It is a lamentable document because of the lack of information it contains on so many of the important issues on which I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments.
We should use the time we have today to talk about what we need to know and to ask the Government what their plan is. That is why I will briefly go through some of the new clauses I have tabled. For the sake of argument, let us take the first one, new clause 20 on financial services. One could say that it is merely a small corner of Britain’s GDP, but it provides £67 billion of revenue for all our schools and hospitals. If we mess around with that sector in the wrong way, we will all be poorer and our public services will be poorer as a result.
New clause 20 suggests that there should be a report twice a year on where we are going on one of those questions that was not contained in the White Paper: “What is our progress towards a smooth transition from the existing open market access, where we have passports, to the new arrangements, whatever they are going to be?” The White Paper merely says, “We’d quite like to have the freest possible trade,” but it says nothing about what will happen on mutual co-operation, regulation and oversight; whether we will be able to have permanent equivalence rights for some trades; or whether UK firms will have time to adjust.
Those issues already pose a clear and present danger to our economy. HSBC says that 1,000 jobs are going to go, Lloyd’s of London is moving some of its activities, UBS is moving 1,000 jobs, and J.P. Morgan has said that potentially 4,000 jobs will go. Firms are voting with their feet already, yet the White Paper hardly touches on this question.

Ian Murray: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligence on this Bill and for tabling these important new clauses. If we boil it all  down, this is not about passporting and the complicated legal framework around financial services, but is about the tens of thousands of my constituents who are in highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the financial services sector and who are worried about their future employment.

Chris Leslie: Absolutely. When hon. Members are asked by their constituents, “What time did you have to debate financial services?”, they will have to say, “There was only a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes. I didn’t say anything about it because of the ridiculous programme motion that we put in place to curtail debate.”

Ian Paisley Jnr: Is it right that the hon. Gentleman talks down the City of London in this way? We all know about the threats that have been made, but not one of those jobs has left the City of London. The fact is that, given a choice between London, Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris, those companies will choose London every time.

Chris Leslie: I really hope that that is the case. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration, but he should look at the press releases from HSBC, Lloyd’s of London, UBS and J.P. Morgan. These are not alternative facts; this is the real truth. These are people’s jobs and this is revenue for our country that we will potentially lose.

Neil Coyle: It is not talking down the City of London to highlight the report by TheCityUK emphasising that the best-case scenario, under the Government’s plan, is for 7,000 jobs losses, but that the worst-case scenario could be more than 70,000 job losses. That is not talking the City down but making the economic case for securing the best deal.

Chris Leslie: These are the realities we face.

David Lammy: Is it not my hon. Friend’s point that we are now a service economy? The service sector accounts for 88% of London’s economy, and the service sector can move. Prior to our joining the EU, we had things in the ground, we were a great manufacturing nation, but that is not the case today.

Chris Leslie: That is another issue that deserves a massive amount of consideration, but we just do not have the time to go through it today.
I will move on, then, to new clause 22, on competition policy—another small area of policy! The White Paper says absolutely nothing about what the UK will do, upon our exit from the EU, in respect of competition policy. It is totally silent. Will we change our attitude towards state aid for industry? What will our state aid rules be? If we make a change, will our trading partners baulk at the idea that we might be subsidising products in a particular way? Will we be undercutting their production? Would we not wish to do that? Will we take on the WTO disciplines on subsidies? Will we join the EEA scheme on subsidies? What about state aid rules, competition policy, the European Free Trade Association? This a big deal. I think of subjects that have come up recently such as Hinkley Point, the British investment bank and British steel. These are all questions we have  to consider and decide upon. All I am saying in new clause 22 is that the Government should publish a report in one month on their attitude to competition policy. It is a pretty simple measure.
I have tabled other amendments that would require Ministers to set out their aspirations, within one month of Royal Assent, on other questions that will arise as we extract ourselves from some of these European partnerships, alliances and agencies. On law enforcement, for example, what will we do about Europol? New clause 111 touches on the benefits we currently enjoy from cross-border co-operation on cybercrime, terrorism, combating trafficking and other important activities. We deserve to know the Government’s approach to cross-border crime, as we do with respect to the European Police College, Eurojust, our co-operation with prosecuting authorities, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The White Paper is totally silent on all those issues. We have no idea what the Government’s plan and negotiating stance will be, and yet we do not have the time to debate these matters properly.

Jim Cunningham: I do not know what the Government are worried about. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows that each side can report back from time to time without necessarily giving away their negotiating hand. I do not know what they are scared of.

Chris Leslie: I think they might be scared of the debate. It also reflects their lack of awareness of the issues. The Government have not thought this through but instead are confronting issues as they bubble up, at a fairly random level, while giving a veneer of control—“We must not show our cards”, “I cannot give a running commentary”. Ministers use these phrases, but behind the curtain they are panicking and their feet are moving rapidly, because they do not have a clue.

Hugo Swire: By logical extension, the hon. Gentleman wants to unpick almost every single part of EU policy, legislation and co-operation with the UK, bring it to the House and get the Government to set out what they want to do about them. How long does he think it would take to dissociate ourselves from the EU if we were to take that line—two years or 20 years?

Chris Leslie: It would take more than the three days that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have given us to debate these questions. We are leaving the EU—that is what the Bill is for. He and his hon. Friends might be happy to trust the Prime Minister entirely, but Parliament is sovereign. The Supreme Court gave us this duty and said that we should do our due diligence, but the time constraints will prevent us from doing so.
I wish to raise a couple of other law enforcement issues. The big one, in new clause 177, concerns the Government’s policy on the European arrest warrant. The EAW, of course, is there to make sure we can transfer criminal suspects or sentenced persons from other countries and put them on trial here, and vice versa. The UK has extradited more than 8,000 individuals  accused or convicted of criminal offences to the rest of the EU. I think of the case of Hussain Osman, found guilty of the Shepherd’s Bush tube bombing in July 2005, captured in Rome, extradited under the EAW and sentenced to 40 years. In 2014, the Prime Minister herself said that ditching the EAW would turn Britain into
“a honeypot for all of Europe’s criminals on the run from justice”.
From the Prime Minister’s own mouth! What will be our attitude towards the current level of participation? Will we want to continue with the EAW? There is nothing in the White Paper about it.

Philippa Whitford: Is it not the agencies that will be the biggest problem? The Government describe moving everything over with a great repeal Bill, but what happens where that Bill refers to actions that depend on an EU agency, given that we will not have that agency?

Chris Leslie: That is the fallacy behind the reassurances to hon. Members. We are told, “Don’t worry. We can come to this in later legislation. It will all be fine. The great repeal Bill will deal with these things”. Of course it will not. These are facilities and levels of co-operation and alliances that exist because of our membership of the EU, and yet we will not even have the time to debate the consequences.
I had better move on rapidly. On public health, what is the plan? What do the Government intend to do? Again, the White Paper said virtually nothing about a range of critical alliances, such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as dealt with in new clause 113. During the outbreak of SARS in 2003, when the disease rapidly spread across several countries, we knew what to do because these EU-wide institutions and public health authorities were able to provide research and intelligence. There is nothing in the White Paper about the British Government’s attitude to such pan-European questions.
What will we do about the European Medicines Agency, as dealt with in new clause 115? Currently based in London, the EMA harmonises the work of national medical regulatory bodies across a range of issues including the application for marketing authorisations, support for medicines development, patents, monitoring the safety of medicines, providing medical information to healthcare professionals and so forth. Who will take on those responsibilities? What will happen? The White Paper was totally silent on that question.

Ben Bradshaw: The Health Secretary told the Health Committee the other day that he had already thrown in the towel on the EMA—that we were leaving it and giving up the headquarters in London, along with hundreds of jobs, meaning far slower approval of vital drugs in this country and the loss of all our influence and all those jobs.

Chris Leslie: Yes, and, again, we have heard no strategic alternatives from the Government and have no idea what their plan will be.

Pat McFadden: Given that the Government have said that they will pull out of Euratom, because it is part of the EU, is not the logical extension of their position to pull out of all  those agencies? If so, why does my hon. Friend think they do not want to face up to it? Is it because they do not want to face up to the cost of duplicating the work of 30-odd agencies?

Chris Leslie: I do not think Ministers know what to say about some of these questions. They hope that because the issues are fairly low level and very specialist, nobody will spot them, but they will start to affect very many people. Myriad issues will arise.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of our leaving the EMA many jobs in the medical and drugs world will move out of Britain? I met people representing those interests only today, and they are very fearful of what will happen to British jobs.

Chris Leslie: I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend not only that he is right, but that the list goes on—the list of the consequences of withdrawing from the EU without Parliament even having the opportunity properly to debate it. Food safety is covered by the European Food Safety Authority, so we will be throwing in the towel on independent scientific advice on food chain issues and research that is currently in place through our involvement in the EFSA—and there is nothing in the White Paper about it.
What about the E111 health insurance scheme? Hon. Members will remember that the scheme is not just for tourists, because there is the E110 for hauliers and the E128 for students. What, then, is the plan? What will happen when our constituents go abroad?

John Redwood: rose—

Chris Leslie: Oh, the right hon. Gentleman knows what the plan is for the E111.

John Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would understand it perfectly as well as I do. The plan is very simple. All existing laws and requirements will be transferred into good British law. If we need a different adjudicator, that adjudicator can be selected and approved by Parliament. The great news for both of us is that nothing will change legally unless and until this Parliament debates it and wants to change it.

Chris Leslie: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has actually left these shores and visited other countries: we do not control the sort of health insurance and health service schemes that happen in those other European countries, but we currently have a reciprocal health insurance arrangement that provides him, his family and his constituents with a certain degree of cover. That could well be ripped up because of the consequences of the legislation that we are potentially passing—without a word from the Government and with nothing in the White Paper.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the E111 scheme, because that will have a practical impact on our constituents. If my hon. Friend does not get a clear answer on that, I fear that many constituents  will be forced into buying very expensive travel insurance policies to make sure that they are covered while the scheme is left in limbo.

Chris Leslie: The consequences of this aspect and many others are myriad. I hope that the House will begin to wake up and realise that we have been sold a pup with this programme motion, which does not give us enough time to discuss all this. I have to move on.
The European Chemicals Agency is another example of something that will be ditched. Companies currently have to provide information about hazards, risks and the safe use of chemicals, but we will potentially leave that agency, with nothing in the White Paper about the alternative.
Another health and safety issue is aviation. What will we do about safe skies, the regulation of aircraft parts, engines and many other aspects? What will we do about maritime safety? What happens if shipping disasters occur on or around our shores? What is the Government’s alternative? There is nothing in the White Paper.
Another minor issue—he said sarcastically—is the environment, and we will potentially leave the European Environment Agency. New clause 120 simply asks that we have a report within a month on what the Government’s plans should be.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Chris Leslie: I want to move on, if I may.
When it comes to education, science and research issues, we will leave the European Research Council, which is very important. Hon. Members may know about the Erasmus scheme, which means that all our constituents who currently want to study abroad for a few months can have that time recognised as part of their degree, but what will happen to that scheme? There is nothing in the White Paper. It does not say anything about students in our constituencies potentially losing out very significantly. What about satellite issues, plant variety issues, locational training and all sorts of issues?

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is indeed making an excellent speech and highlighting the complexity of the challenges we face. He referred to science, and I had a conversation yesterday with my constituent Clare, who is a scientist and was extremely concerned about how our collaboration will work and what projects we will be included in in the future. She was also concerned about the impact on our young people. Their future is ahead of them, and in a sense we are pulling the rug out from under their feet.

Chris Leslie: We should have the time, the space and the opportunity to discuss the consequences for my hon. Friend’s constituent, but we will not. My hon. Friend will have to tell her constituent that we did not have enough time in the House of Commons. Fingers crossed, there might be time for the House of Lords to do some of this work and put their concerns to Ministers in the other place.

Liz Kendall: My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of trying to scrutinise the implications of this Bill, yet we have less time on the Floor of the  House to debate it than we would have in Committee for much less important Bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we want all these issues to be sorted out within two years, that might not happen, which is why we need transitional arrangements as well as a vote on the final deal, so that this House can see whether the Government have done their job properly and truly got the best deal for Britain?

Chris Leslie: Exactly. We need to use the two-year negotiation period wisely. We shall come on in Committee tomorrow to some of those particular issues.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having an environment policy, we need to make sure that it is enforceable? It is no good just moving it across, if we cannot bring enforcement to bear. Does he also agree with me that the European Investment Bank is a crucial issue, because it is a massive investor in renewable energy in this country? We need to know where we stand on that.

Chris Leslie: In that case, I will move on to new clause 122, which references the European Investment Bank. It deals with a series of economic and trade co-operation issues, which are again not referenced at all in the White Paper. Can you imagine, Mr Howarth, the Government producing a White Paper about the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union without even mentioning the European Investment Bank, in which, by the way, we currently have a 16% stake? It part-funds Crossrail and the Manchester Metrolink. This is a massively important institution, yet we are simply shrugging it off in a blasé way, saying “Trust the Prime Minister; it will all be fine”. We should at least ask Ministers about the attitude of the British Government towards it, so I ask the Minister directly: what is the British Government’s attitude to our continued participation in the European Investment Bank? He needs to address that and other issues.
I had better move on and talk about a couple of other new clauses. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and it is frustrating that we do not have enough time properly to debate the issues. I am glad to see in their place a couple of hon. Members who might be interested in these things. New clauses 128, 129 and 130 deal with the issue of the protected designation of the origins of goods and services—specifically, their protected geographical indication.
Hon. Members might well have relevant businesses within their constituencies. This is sometimes known as “the Stilton amendment”, so I am looking at the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). I understand that Stilton is not necessarily made in North West Cambridgeshire, but the hon. Gentleman has the village of Stilton in his constituency. Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) will be well aware of the wonders of Fal oysters, which are protected under the protected geographical indication—PGI—scheme that applies to European trade. Whether they are called “the Stilton amendment” or “the Scotch whisky amendment”, the new clauses simply ask what the Government’s plan is for those protected products—much-cherished and much-valued not just where they are produced, but where they are consumed worldwide—if  they lose their protected status? We could end up having knock-off Scotch whisky sold around the world without that protection. The same might apply to Scotch beef, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Arbroath smokies, Yorkshire Wensleydale, Newcastle Brown Ale and the Cornish pasty.

Shailesh Vara: As it happens, the protected status of Stilton cheese prohibits people living in the village of Stilton in my constituency from making it. They researched the cheese and found that it was originally made in the village, but they are prohibited from making it by the protected status to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When we leave the European Union, they will be able to make Stilton cheese in Stilton.

Chris Leslie: Finally, we get some sign of life from Conservative Members. They are finally interested in the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union. This is an issue that the House should have the opportunity to discuss. Many firms, industries and producers, on both sides of this question, will either benefit or—probably—lose out, as a result of our exiting from the European Union in this way.

Mary Creagh: Blessed are the cheesemakers, wherever they happen to live, but may I return my hon. Friend to new clause 112, which deals with the European Chemicals Agency, and alert him to the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee is looking into the issue? I have the 200 pages of evidence on what withdrawing from the European chemicals regulations will mean for the motor industry, the defence industry and the pharmaceuticals industry in this country, and it does not make pretty reading.

Chris Leslie: As my hon. Friend says, there are serious questions about hazards that could affect our constituents and substances that pose dangers because, for instance, they may be carcinogenic.
We are disappointed in the Government not only because of their White Paper, but because they are trying to gag Parliament and prevent it from debating these issues. Muzzling Members on both sides of the House on these questions means that we will end up far poorer and far worse off, and it sends a message to the Lords that they will have to do the job of scrutiny and due diligence that we were unable to do. This is our only substantive opportunity to debate the Bill. Parliament deserves more respect than the Government have shown in their insubstantial, inadequate White Paper, which does not touch on many of the questions in our new clauses. We simply want to know what they plan to do, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will answer our questions when he responds to the debate.

Heidi Allen: I want to speak briefly about new clauses 171, 173 and, principally, 57.
I am proud to represent my constituency, which is home to some of the most impressive academic and scientific research in the world. We attract and grow the most innovative brains, and we do that by looking outwards rather than inwards. I know that the Government have confirmed that all EU legislation will simply be transferred to UK law on the day of exit, but I feel that particular attention should be paid to planning our future academic and scientific collaborations.
New clauses 171 and 173 request reports from the Government on the future of the Erasmus+ scheme and participation in the European research area. Given that our academic and research industries are two of our greatest exports and feature heavily in the business, energy and industrial strategy, such reports should be very straightforward. We need to give clarity and reassurance to those sectors, which I know are exceptionally worried about the future. The University of Cambridge, the Babraham Institute, the Wellcome Genome Campus and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, to mention just a few institutions in my constituency, are extremely important to national prosperity, and they deserve priority in the Government’s thinking.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady is making a very important speech, but is she aware that it is not necessary to leave behind all those EU agencies? When it comes to research and development, for example, Israel belongs to Horizon 2020. Does the hon. Lady not think that the Government should look into that, and consider the granting of such a status to this country?

Heidi Allen: I entirely agree. I think that what is most important is for Ministers to listen to organisations such as those in my constituency in order to understand what they need. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has visited Cambridge twice since Christmas, because he is clearly listening, but we in the Chamber are not the experts. Those organisations are, and we should listen to what they say.

David Lammy: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems that universities are experiencing is that PhD students and other academics are choosing not to come to Britain now? That means that our global universities are losing out to Harvard, Yale and Berkeley, and universities in other countries.

Heidi Allen: I regularly speak to members of the University of Cambridge, because a couple of its colleges are in my constituency. Although numbers have not fallen so far, I know that they are very worried about what will happen in a couple of years. Universities are a fundamental part of what is great about this country, and they deserve our protection. That is why we need to look fully at the implications for them, and the Government need to listen.
The debate on new clause 57 is probably one of the most important debates that we shall have, because it concerns the continuing rights of EU citizens lawfully residing here before or on 23 June last year. I recognise that the Prime Minister has said that seeking reciprocal rights will be her earliest negotiation priority, and I also recognise that many EU citizens already have an automatic right to remain. However, the issue will continue to keep many of my constituents awake at night until it is resolved.

Jim Cunningham: Like, probably, the hon. Lady, I have been written to by a number of my constituents who are married to British citizens but are EU nationals, and they are very concerned. I should have thought that the Government would give them some sort of comfort, because this is certainly creating problems within families.

Heidi Allen: Absolutely. I speak as a woman with a German mother. I think that on some occasions my father would be quite pleased if my mother were sent back. [Laughter.] He would agree with me about that. However, I do understand the rifts that this is causing in the community, particularly in my constituency, which is bursting with citizens of every nation in the EU who have families and relatives. However, it is not just the EU citizens who are worried; the communities that wrap around them are worried as well.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is not the issue solved by the Government’s current proposals? When everything is brought into UK law by the great repeal Bill, all EU nationals here will continue to have the right to reside unless Parliament legislates to take it away, which seems to me to be inconceivable.

Heidi Allen: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made an accurate point. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that while there may be legal and administrative realities ensuring that people would never be sent home, the perception and feeling of those people is more important. We should cut through the red tape and give them clarity, because that is what they deserve.

Robert Jenrick: Can we put this in context, so that people listening at home will understand and not feel unduly nervous about what is happening? Does my hon. Friend agree that 61% of all EU nationals living in the UK already have a permanent right to reside in this country, and that by the time the UK leaves the EU, that figure will have risen to between 80% and 90%? A very large proportion of EU nationals who are already in this country have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Heidi Allen: That is a valid point, but this should not just be about a piece of paper and whether a form has been completed. We already know of cases in which people’s applications have been turned down. This is not just about citizens who have been here for five years or 10 years. Every day, brains and skills come to my constituency. Should I discriminate against someone who has been here for two years, or for five years? No. Those people have a right to be here, and we should honour that.

Mark Harper: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier, but I meant it very sincerely. More than 4,000 EU nationals do not fit the description that she has given. They are people who are here and have abused our hospitality by committing crimes for which they have been sent to prison. The problem with a blanket approach is that it will give those people the right to stay here. Having dealt with individual cases, I know that nothing will do more damage to the British people’s wish to welcome EU nationals than our not being able to deport people who came here as EU nationals and then committed serious crimes. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that?

George Howarth: Order. In the brief time for which I have been in the Chair, I have noted that some of the interventions seem to be getting excessively long. I remind Members that interventions should be confined to a single point, and a short one at that.

Heidi Allen: You will be pleased to know that my speech is very short, Mr Howarth, so I do not have much more to get through.

George Howarth: Order. I was talking about interventions, not speeches.

Heidi Allen: If the interventions are long, my speech will be short.
Let me say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Nothing is perfect, but should the policy that we make be based on a few bad apples or on the rights of thousands of fabulous citizens who come here and contribute? What we are discussing today is whether we should be offering unilateral rights to them before securing rights for our UK citizens abroad. I have a sense of what is the moral and right thing to do. I believe that we should be leading the way, and offering those rights unilaterally to EU citizens in the UK.

Shailesh Vara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Heidi Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. I wish to make a bit of progress, but I will give way again later.
Until we have that resolution, however and whenever it comes, this will prey on the minds of families and our NHS, and will damage the collaboration that is vital to the scientific and academic organisations in my constituency. Many of my constituents have lost all sense of direction, and are struggling to recognise the tolerant, open country of which they are normally so proud. The wounds of the referendum have not yet healed. Although I was grateful for the opportunity to probe the Prime Minister when she made her statement earlier today, I wish to repeat my request for her to keep a unilateral offer to EU citizens in her mind.
As time passes, I fear that the distasteful currency valuation of both our citizens and EU citizens will increase. If an early agreement is not reached—as the Prime Minister hopes it will—I will urge her to step in and halt the trading. We are talking about people. If the Prime Minister were to offer continued rights to EU citizens unilaterally, I believe she would pull the country in behind her. She would strengthen our collective resolve and push forward through the negotiations with the shared will of the 48% and the 52%. At the moment, those in the 48% in my constituency do not feel part of the conversation. Crucially, we would demonstrate that in this global turbulence Britain is, as it always has been, a beacon for humanity and for democracy, a principled and proud nation and—one day soon, I hope—leading the way with compassion and dignity.

Alistair Carmichael: My hon. and right hon. Friends have tabled several new clauses, but we have a remarkable range of amendments before us this evening, so I will confine my remarks to those relating to the position of EU nationals wishing to remain and their rights to remain.
I want to explain why this matters to me as a Liberal and an islander. Those representing island communities understand that things very often have to run to different rules and we have different priorities. One of the most important aspects of keeping an island community  viable, prosperous and growing is maintaining a viable level of population, and in recent years and decades the contribution of EU citizens to growing and maintaining the services and businesses within the island communities that it is my privilege to represent has been enormously important. It matters to my communities, therefore, that the position of these EU nationals who live in our communities, and who contribute to our public services and businesses, should be clarified; they should be given the greatest possible reassurance at the earliest possible opportunity.
There is no aspect of island life these days in which we will not find EU nationals living and working. They work in our fish houses, they work in our hotels and bars, they work in our hospitals, our garages and building companies, and they teach in our schools. If we go into the admirable University of the Highlands and Islands, we will find them leading some groundbreaking research there, especially in the development of renewable energy—a future for our whole country. That is why the position of these people in our communities matters to the people I represent, and they matter to me, and they should matter to us all.

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is making a very good point as regards EU nationals; indeed, many colleagues have said likewise. Does he not accept, however, that while we talk about securing the position of EU nationals living in Britain, we as British parliamentarians have a duty to British nationals living overseas—we have a duty to make sure that they, too, are looked after—and that if we secure the rights of foreigners living in this country before British nationals overseas are looked after, we are neglecting our duty?

Alistair Carmichael: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have worked in the past, and who I hold in some regard, that, bluntly, it is invidious to play the interests of one group of desperate people off against the interests of another group, and there is a danger of that emerging from what he is saying and the terms in which he puts it. Because as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I also serve, reminded us, this was the evidence that we heard from British nationals currently living in other parts of the EU; this is what they want us to do, because they see that it is in their interests that we should do this. They see this move as the best, most immediate and speediest way in which their position can be given some degree of certainty.
The real importance of this move is the atmosphere that it would create. We cannot ignore the atmosphere that we have found in many of our communities since 23 June, and the spike we have seen in hate crime; and we must also think about the atmosphere in which the Prime Minister is going to open the negotiations after the triggering of article 50. The atmosphere will be so much better—so much improved—if we are able to say, “We enter this as a negotiation between friends and neighbours, and as such we offer you this important move for your citizens as a mark of our good faith and our good will.”
I also want to deal with one matter that was raised in the Select Committee, and which has been touched on today: the opportunity of EU nationals to secure their  position by means of the permanent residence card. I say to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), that he should be talking about this to his colleagues in the Home Office, because there are enormous difficulties with it. [Interruption.] I see the Minister for Immigration is sitting on the Treasury Bench, too, and he will be aware that some 30% of the—expensive—applications that are necessary for permanent residence cards are currently refused. The evidence brought to the Select Committee was that this involves, I think, an 85-page form. The sheer volume of supporting documentation required for these applications is enormous. The level of detail that is asked about the occasions over the past five, 10, 15 or 20 years when people have left the country even on holiday and then returned, and the evidence required to support these dates, is unreasonable and is putting an enormous burden on those seeking this small measure of reassurance in the short to medium term. This needs to be revisited.
The unfairness of the situation came home to me when I saw a constituent on Friday, who brought to my office the letter she received in 1997 from the then Immigration and Nationality Directorate. She was told:
“You can now remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom. You do not need permission from a Government Department to take or change employment and you may engage in business or a profession as long as you comply with any general regulations for the business or professional activity.”
Nobody told my constituent in 1997 that 20 years later she was going to have to produce tickets to show that in 2005 she took a two-week holiday in Ibiza, or whatever, but that is the situation in which she now finds herself if she is going to achieve that small measure of security for her and her family.
The challenge facing our country at this point is how we go forward in a way that allows us to bring the 52% and the 48% back together. Our country faces an enormous challenge, and it is one that we cannot meet with the support of only half of our population; we need all our people to be able to pull together. This would be one small measure that would allow the Government to bring the two sides together to get the best possible deal for all our citizens, whether they are British by birth or British by choice.

Will Quince: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), although he might not entirely share the sentiment once I have finished my contribution. I promise that it will be a short contribution, in the interests of time and the number of Members who wish to have their say. I rise to speak against in particular new clauses 56 and 134.
There are some in the House who have said that the referendum result should not be respected because the people did not know what they were voting for. They are determined to find confusion where none exists. They say that the public voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market or the customs union. Members are arguing through these amendments that we in this House need to debate whether or not we leave the single market. I disagree.
The majority of voters who took part in the referendum said that they wanted to leave the European Union. Many of those who contacted me said that they wanted  to | restore our parliamentary sovereignty and sovereignty over our courts, to regain control over our immigration policy, and to strike out in the world and forge new deals with countries across the globe. Those aims are incompatible with remaining in the single market or in the customs union.
We chose to go to the people with this referendum. I did not campaign for either side in the referendum, but I followed the two campaigns closely. Throughout the referendum campaign, those involved in the leave campaign said that we would be leaving the single market. On the remain side, our former Prime Minister David Cameron said during the campaign that, in the event of a vote to leave:
“What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

Caroline Lucas: I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would not rewrite history. I have some lovely quotes here. The present Foreign Secretary said:
“I’d vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said:
“Only a madman would actually leave the market”.
That one speaks for itself. Arron Banks stated:
“Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK.”
What the hon. Gentleman is saying is simply not the case.

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but those were selective quotes, taken out of context. How could it not have been clear what the public were voting for?

Anna Soubry: Is my hon. Friend honestly saying that the good people of Colchester sat in a variety of places where they might go to enjoy themselves mulling over the finer points of the single market?

Will Quince: I think my right hon. Friend underestimates the intelligence of the people of Colchester.
I would be more sympathetic to those tabling the new clauses if they had not voted in favour of holding the referendum. However, they supported it. They agreed to entrust this question to the British people. I remember when some on the other side of the House, namely the Liberal Democrats—although I question that name in the context of this debate—were calling for a “real referendum”. Well, we had a real referendum—the biggest exercise in democracy in our nation’s history—and we have been given a result. Those hon. Members just do not like what they heard. We should respect the instruction we were given by the British people. We were told that we were going to leave the European Union and the single market, and leave we should.
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are leaving the single market. Those on the Opposition Benches tabling these new clauses should perhaps listen to the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord Ashdown, who said that
“when the British people have spoken, you do what they command”.
We do not need this debate. It is simply an attempt to obfuscate and delay the process. That is why I cannot support new clauses 56 or 134, and I encourage colleagues to oppose them.

Helen Goodman: It is as pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I should like to speak to new clauses 29 and 33, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. colleagues.
The Secretary of State—who is not here for this debate—said with his usual braggadocio that he would produce a Bill that was unamendable. Today, we have a list of amendments that is 145 pages long. The ratio of lines in the amendments to lines in the Bill 580:1, which must be an all-time record. It is certainly a tribute to the productivity of hon. Members on this side of the House. However, the chutzpah of the Secretary of State was exceeded by the civil servant who wrote paragraph 14 of the Bill’s explanatory notes, which states:
“The impact of the Bill itself will be both clear and limited”.
No. The effect of the Bill is not clear and it is certainly not limited. The fact that hon. Members have tabled so many new clauses and amendments demonstrates why this debate on parliamentary scrutiny is so important.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), whose constituents voted leave in the referendum. Mine did too, and his speech was the perfect introduction to my own. I want to describe why it is also in the interests of those who voted leave that we should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. The referendum campaign was won on the slogan of taking back control and bringing back parliamentary sovereignty. We cannot do that without having proper parliamentary scrutiny.
New clause 29 is perfectly simple and straightforward: it proposes a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. That would give the House a structured approach. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) complained about new clause 3—which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook)—saying that it would create problems of justiciability. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the requirement to produce a report once a quarter is not such a high or complex legal bar, and that it would not lead to extremely long litigation. It is a simple, practical measure.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Lady imagine that there would be no court cases about whether such quarterly reports conformed with the appropriate procedure? Is she aware of the chain of jurisprudence in judicial review that leads to the possibility of that kind of contest? What does she think would happen if the courts started intervening in the matter of whether the reports met the requirements of her new clause?

Helen Goodman: First, it is not clear that such cases would get leave of hearing. Secondly, any such case would be dismissed straight away, so long as the Government had abided by the requirement to produce quarterly reports. There simply would not be a case to answer. This is a simple and straightforward proposal.

Oliver Letwin: So does the hon. Lady think that the Government would satisfy the conditions of her new clause if they simply produced one line saying,  “This is our report”? Or does she believe that it would have to be an appropriate report? If that were the case, could not a court decide whether it was appropriate or not?

Helen Goodman: As the Chairman of the Select Committee said earlier, when we got into a discussion about the requests from the Opposition Front Bench, the nature of the report would be a matter for the Government. I am sure that the Government would behave in a reasonable manner if this provision were in the legislation.
As I was saying to the hon. Member for Colchester, my constituency voted leave. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that the Prime Minister would have the power to trigger our intention to withdraw from the European Union under article 50. However, the political legitimacy stemming from the result of last summer’s referendum does not extend to giving the Government a blank cheque for their negotiating objectives or for the way in which they conduct the negotiations. Everyone is clear that this will have major constitutional, political, economic and social implications for our relations with other countries and for the domestic framework of our legislation.
Given the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no plan, I have consulted my constituents on their expectations and hopes, and on how they want these decisions to be taken. I wrote to 5,500 of them, and I held six public meetings. They felt strongly that they wanted Parliament to be involved. In fact, some of them thought that the negotiations should be conducted by a cross-party team. I said that I did not think that was terribly likely—

Anna Soubry: Given the quality of your Front Bench.

Helen Goodman: Let me tell the right hon. Lady about the views that were expressed in my constituency, even though they might be different from those being expressed in her own. When we discussed the social chapter and people’s employment rights, my constituents said, in terms, “You can’t trust the Tories.” It is because of that feeling—[Interruption.] Those were their words, not mine. It is because of that feeling that we need to have parliamentary involvement in the way this process is carried forward.
The Government have reluctantly come to the House with this Bill. I first requested that Parliament be involved on 11 July in an urgent question on article 50. The Government resisted, as everybody knows, and only came to the House because they were forced to by the Supreme Court. Some Government Back Benchers say that the negotiations are far too complex to do openly—the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked about 3D chess, for example—but I take the opposite view: it is precisely because the negotiations are complicated and multifaceted that lots of people should be involved.

Richard Graham: The vast majority of the amendments—I think I counted 30—tabled by members of the Opposition basically call for a report within 30 days of the Bill coming into force setting out the Government’s approach in the negotiations. Does the hon. Lady imagine that Europe will publish reports on every one of these issues, setting out its approach in the negotiations? That would surely be giving away too much.

Helen Goodman: Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place to hear the fantastic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), he would understand why my hon. Friend was proposing all those reports. I am speaking to new clause 29, which is about quarterly reporting by the Government once the negotiations get under way.
Another slight misconception among Government Members is that there is some best deal, but there is clearly no objective technical standard test. What is best in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be different from what is best in my constituency. I am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Government Members; I am being realistic. When the Prime Minister talks about building a better Britain and doing what is best for the country, I am sure that she is being completely sincere, but she stood in a general election in Durham in 1992 and received half as many votes as the Labour candidate. The truth of the matter is that the process is complicated and there are different interests. Parliament, which is the sovereign body of the country, should be able to participate fully in that process, and scrutiny is the basic first brick of it.

Alex Chalk: The net effect of the hon. Lady’s new clause is that the High Court, not Parliament, would decide on the adequacy or otherwise of the reporting. She would be ceding authority not to this place but to the independent High Court, which is contrary to what she is trying to achieve.

Helen Goodman: Look, I am sorry that Government Members feel so bad about losing the Supreme Court case last month. It is a shame. The Government were foolish to appeal after the High Court judgment. However, the fact that they have lost one case does not mean that they should become obsessed with the risk. It is as absurd as saying, “Well, we should stop having parliamentary questions for every Department once a month because they somehow undermine the Government.” Take Defence Question Time, for example. It happens every single month, but it does not undermine our security; it holds the Government to account. It is because the negotiations are so important that the Government should report back. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. Unlike some Government Back Benchers, I think he understands that this is not a technical issue; it is a political process. Involving Parliament and having proper parliamentary scrutiny is the right thing to do to build a national consensus, which the Government state is their aim in the White Paper.
New clause 29 is simple and straightforward and would require a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. While the Select Committees are doing fantastic work in considering particular issues in great detail, it is extremely important that the whole House gets a regular opportunity to see how things are going and to provide the perspective of the different communities we represent. Out of necessity, I drafted new clause 29 without having seen new clause 3, which is obviously tougher than new clause 29, so some people will prefer one over the other.
New clause 33 would require the Prime Minister to set out how the UK will have control over its immigration system. I tabled it because that is the major concern of  many people, leave voters in particular, so it seems right to refer to it in the draft framework and negotiating objectives that we must prepare for our future relationship with the EU. However, I want to make it clear that while that was a factor for some constituents in how they voted, they were equally committed to providing security for EU citizens in this country. I added my name to new clause 57, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), because those things are completely consistent. I would like to say more on that, but we have only a short amount of time.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Lady refers to guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place, stated the legal position. The Government could make that guarantee tonight, saying that my hon. Friend was correct, by stating that those rights would be grandfathered straight into the Immigration Act 2016. That may not be the preferred method for many in this House, but it would effectively guarantee EU citizens what they want. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Helen Goodman: I have not thought about that in as much detail as the hon. Gentleman, but it will be interesting to see what the Minister says when he responds to the debate from the Dispatch Box tonight.
As I was saying, we should have proper, structured scrutiny, and I am disappointed that we do not have slightly longer to consider all these matters in more detail.

Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who expressed her view with her usual forthrightness. She was one of the first Members in the House to raise the complex issue of the customs union, for which I am very grateful.
Last July, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) moved an Opposition motion on guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and I was one of five Conservative Members to support it. It was an excellent motion to propose at that time, and thanks to that motion tremendous progress has been made in the Government’s thinking and statements as a result. We are debating an issue on which there is unanimity of view about what we want to achieve. It goes almost to the point of parody: everyone is agreeing on a point about which they are then going to disagree. The fundamental question is whether placing such a measure in this Bill is the right approach to continue the pressure and achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) spoke about so eloquently.

Heidi Allen: My hon. Friend asks whether the Bill is the right place for such a proposal. Should it be that we in this country need legislation to orientate our moral compass?

Richard Fuller: I think my hon. Friend knows my view, so I will not dwell on that.
As I looked through the many amendments, I noted that they fall into three main categories: those that ask for or require scrutiny of the Government’s approach;  those that seek to frame a position for the Government in the negotiations; and those that seek answers to an imponderable list of questions—most notably those from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Each of those groups in turn is less worthy of the House’s attention. Scrutiny is relevant to how the House sees things proceeding, and I will listen carefully to what the Front-Bench team says about that. I am concerned, however, by some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to which he did not receive answers. The idea that we would involve the Government in the negotiations, then involve Parliament in the negotiations and then also involve the courts in the negotiations brings the words “dog’s” and “breakfast” close together very quickly.
On EU nationals here in the UK, many of the contributions to this debate have focused on the easiest side of the argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned prisoners in the UK, and under last year’s motion those prisoners who have committed crimes in this country would be guaranteed the right to remain. We may want to do that, but it is a hard case to make that we should do that while not giving any consideration to British nationals in other EU countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire might say, we would then seem to be losing our moral compass through legislation.
A number of Members have cited specific examples of where prisoners would already be guaranteed rights in this country. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to reduce uncertainty as we go through the process of leaving the EU, and one practical way of doing that is by knowing what the circumstances are for each of our constituents who come to talk to us so that we can explain to them that there is no need for them to be concerned because their rights are secure—the proposal will not cover all of them, and it might not cover as large a proportion as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, but it is a practical example of where we can help to reduce uncertainty.
The third argument on this issue of EU nationals who have the right to remain here, upon which we all agree, is that we have focused all our attention on the Government Front Bench. Hardly anyone has mentioned Angela Merkel. As I understand it, and I get this from two very reputable newspapers—The Sun and the Daily Express—so it must be true, it was Mrs Merkel who said no to a deal. Where are the voices talking about pressing the German Government to make an agreement? I have heard plenty of speeches today about Donald Trump and how terrible we feel about his policies. Well, here is something that affects British citizens in another country and not a word from anyone.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by triggering article 50, we will simply give the EU27 all the rights to deliver our future? We would then have no negotiation, which is why we should delay article 50 and let the people have the final say on the negotiated package. As full members, we have negotiating rights. We would then have the power of time, and we would give the EU27 the incentive to come to the negotiating table because we might vote to stay in the EU.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman would not get a top mark in negotiation analysis at Harvard Business School. The last word the British public want to hear when it comes to this Bill is “delay.” Most people think we should get on with it, if they do not think we have done it already.
It is important for the Government to understand that messaging is important. There is uncertainty, and people feel that perhaps they do not have the right to remain here, so the Government must continue their progress in signalling to people not only that we welcome them here but that our intent is that everyone in the United Kingdom as a legal EU resident will be able to stay. We must not avoid, or fail to pursue, communicating that message.
Equally, the Government must avoid measures that give the optics to British citizens in other EU countries that they have been abandoned. One of the worst things of stating this in legislation is not that it is necessarily a bad thing but that the optics for British citizens in other countries would change dramatically. They would say, “Why have we not been protected?” They would feel even more vulnerable because of the inaction of EU Governments if the UK Government were, by statute, to have to take this measure.
I support the Government on this amendment, and I call on them to continue their progress on the issue to end uncertainty. Ending uncertainty is not just about the rights of EU nationals currently living in the UK; it is about wanting people in the European Union to come to the UK. The progressive message of this Government should not just end with the issues contained in the amendment. We should send a positive message that we will continue to welcome people from the European Union after we leave.

Stewart Hosie: I support the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), and I will particularly address new clause 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith).
In particular, I support the argument for a White Paper that includes details of the expected trajectory for the UK’s balance of trade, gross domestic product and unemployment. A number of earlier contributions explained precisely why we need that. My hon. Friend said that Vote Leave failed to provide detailed answers to any of the key economic questions before the referendum and, of course, he is right.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is no longer in his place, demonstrated incredibly ably the confusion at the heart of Vote Leave and why taking a decision today is incredibly difficult. He effectively said—I have spoken to him, so this will come as no surprise to him—that no one in the leadership of the official leave campaign ever argued that we would join the EEA or have an EFTA-type agreement. It might be that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), or one of the other senior figures, never quite said that, but to argue that the leave campaign did not suggest it, and suggest it strongly, is simply wrong. The leave campaign Lawyers for Britain said:
“We could apply to re-join with effect from the day after Brexit… EFTA membership would allow us to continue uninterrupted free trade relations”.
That was still on the website only a few weeks ago.
The former ambassador and Brexit supporter Charles Crawford appeared on “Newsnight” to argue that an EEA option may be the first step of Brexit. Roland Smith, the author of “The Liberal Case for ‘Leave’”, wrote an extended paper titled “Evolution Not Revolution: The case for the EEA option”, so I suspect that there were many people who, indeed, voted for Brexit believing that we were not voting for a hard Tory cliff-edge Brexit and that we would maintain membership of the EEA, EFTA or an equivalent. Given that that now no longer appears to be the case, it is absolutely right, as new clause 51 makes clear, that we have details of the expected trajectory of the balance of trade, GDP and unemployment. Those are not abstracts; they are at the heart of the measurement of our economy, of wages, of living standards and of economic growth. They are the platform for tax yield, which pays for our vital public services. All those words and concepts were almost entirely absent from what I will generously call the first White Paper.
I gently observe that it is not good enough for the Government to produce, after a referendum, a White Paper that is little more that the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech dressed up with a few pictures and a couple of graphs. That is not the basis for the economic plan necessary to mitigate the huge potential damage to the economy from a hard Tory Brexit. Make no mistake, that is what we are facing.

Will Quince: Did the Government leaflet, at great cost, not exactly make the point that single market membership was not an option and that access would be the result of a leave vote in the referendum?

Stewart Hosie: Many things were said, which is my point. Some might argue that being in the EEA or a member of EFTA precisely gives one not just access to but membership of the single market—one could call it access if one likes. There was deep, deep confusion in the messaging of the no side, which must be rectified now with proper details on the trajectory of the key economic numbers before more decisions are taken.
I say that we are facing a hard Brexit, and let us understand what has been said. The leaked Treasury document last November suggested that the UK could lose up to £66 billion from a hard Tory Brexit and that GDP could fall by about 9.5% if the UK reverted to WTO rules. I accept that that is a worst-case scenario, but if the circumstances that lead us to that catastrophe occur and we do not have a plan to mitigate it, the guilt would lie with the Government for failing to plan. The final part of that—the “if we revert to WTO rules”—is key, because the Prime Minister has said that a bad deal is worse than no deal. That is very twisted logic, because no deal is the worst deal; it means we revert immediately to WTO rules, with all the tariffs and other regulatory burdens that that implies.
Of course, the leaked Treasury document was not published in isolation. The centre for economic performance at the London School of Economic published very similar numbers, saying:
“In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity”.
That is already a huge problem for the UK. It also said:
“That increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of between 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP”.
It puts a range of figures on that, varying between £4,200 and £6,500 per household. When we consider that impact on real people, a substantial measure of strength is added to the argument.
The figures for Scotland, independently produced by the Fraser of Allander Institute, are in line with those other assessments. They suggest a hard Brexit could result in the loss of some 80,000 Scottish jobs within a decade and a drop in wages averaging about £2,000. I do not think any politician, of any party, would willingly say, “Let’s embark on a course of action that will lead to the near impoverishment of many people in society”, but that is where we are with the hard Tory Brexit argument. [Interruption.] I can hear the groans, but year after year we heard “Long-term economic plan”, and it failed at every turn. I think it is better if we argue that we are facing a hard Brexit—a cliff-edge Brexit—and we prepare for it. That makes sense.
In addition to those assessments, we had today’s report that senior executives from the FTSE 500 companies are telling us that the Brexit vote is already having a negative impact on their businesses. That should have alarm bells ringing throughout the Government, but instead there is simply complacency. We have also seen the British Chambers of Commerce report telling us that almost half the businesses surveyed have seen a hit to margins due to the devaluation caused by the fear of Brexit, with more than half suggesting they will have to increase prices. That is all the more reason to assess and understand the trajectory of many of the key metrics and the plans to mitigate the worst impact.
All those things come before we get to the vexed question of the balance of trade. Our current account for the last full year was £80 billion in the red and we had a deficit in the trade in goods of £120 billion, yet we are faced with a Brexit that will make that worse, ripping the UK and Scotland out of the world’s largest and most successful trading bloc. Doing that without the asked-for clear assessment of the damage and any credible plan to mitigate it included in a comprehensive White Paper is an act of wilful economic vandalism.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Howarth: Order. I am anxious to get in as many of the people who have sat throughout the debate as possible. There is no time limit and I am not going to impose one, but if those who remain take five minutes, or preferably fewer, it might be possible to get everyone in.

Sarah Wollaston: I wish to start by reading something from a letter I have received from a constituent. He talks about his wife, who was born in the Netherlands. He writes:
“She has lived in this country for over 30 years, brought up three British children and is completely integrated into the life of her local town. She is not part of any ‘immigrant community’. She just lives here and is fully at home here. Until now, she has never seen herself as an outsider and has been able to participate fully in local life, thanks to her rights as an EU citizen. In two years’ time, she will lose those rights and be a foreigner, dependent on the good will of the Government of the day.”
I have written back to and met my constituent, because I think it is inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate this family. However, many people are not reassured, and he and his wife sought for her to have  permanent residency. This involved dealing with an 85-page document, including an English language test and a test about life in Britain, which is insulting to someone who has lived here most of her life and brought up three children here. This process is also very expensive, but the final sting in the tail is that she finds she is not eligible, because she has been self-employed and has not taken out comprehensive sickness insurance. This situation is unacceptable. We need to keep our compassion and keep this simple. It is inconceivable that families such as this would be separated, so we should be absolutely clear in saying so, up front.

Julian Knight: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about her constituency surgeries. I have had a similar experience and it is deeply upsetting in many respects, but will she join me in reflecting that the EU and Chancellor Merkel could have come to a deal on this earlier? The reality is that they have point-blank refused to discuss it before we trigger article 50.

Sarah Wollaston: I agree with that, and I have also heard from constituents of mine who are British citizens now living in the EU. But my point is that, come what may, it is inconceivable that we would seek to separate families such as this one. There is no doubt that many people are sleepless and sick with worry about this, and we have all seen them in our surgeries. [Interruption.] It is true. I am seeing these people in my surgery. We also need to consider the tsunami of paperwork that we will have to deal with in settling the rights of these citizens if we do not get on with this quickly. We need to keep this simple. There is no way that families such as this should be subjected to a vast bureaucracy and vast expense. We all know that this needs to be settled, so in negotiating, surely, making a bold, open offer as a gesture of good will can do nothing but good in this situation.

Richard Fuller: I agree with my hon. Friend, but my question to her is: can she cast any thought on why the Chancellor of Germany refused the offer?

Sarah Wollaston: I have no idea why this is happening, but I am saying, as an important point to the Chancellor of Germany, that making this clear unilateral offer is the right thing to do, and we should get on and do it. There is no reason not to do so. Even if other countries were to take an obstructive and unreasonable line, it would still be inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate families such as my constituents. So let us get on with this.

Anna Soubry: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Prime Minister as given her word that this will be a priority and she clearly hears the compassion that my hon. Friend reflects for her constituent, as we all do for all our constituents? We must, as I certainly do, accept the word of the Prime Minister that this will be her priority and that she will sort it.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Like her, I do trust the Prime Minister, and that is why I have taken a very reassuring line with my constituents. However, there is no substitute for a clear statement from our Prime Minister that, come what may, families such as  this will not be separated, because that is the reassurance they seek. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I think we should get on and make that offer, because it can be nothing but good to do so.
I also hope the Prime Minister will take further action on the issue of those who work in our NHS and social care. One in 10 of the doctors who works in our NHS comes from elsewhere in the EU, and I would like to say thank you, on behalf of the whole House, to all those workers and to all those who are working in social care. It would also be very much a positive move if we could say, up front, that those who are working here will be welcome to stay and make it very clear that we will continue to make it easy to welcome people from across the EU to work in social care and in our NHS.

Owen Smith: I shall make a short, pointed speech, because a lot of other Members have been present throughout the debate and wish to speak. It is extraordinary that we are debating one of the most, if not the most, important economic, social and strategic decisions that this House has had to make—certainly in the six years I have been here and arguably for 70 years—in a few short days and hours.
I shall speak to new clause 51, which I tabled. It is a simple, good-hearted new clause that would get the Government to come clean with the country and explain what they think the effect of Brexit is going to be for our constituents and for the national interest. It refers to labour rights, health and safety legislation, environmental protections and, most importantly, the impact we are likely to see on our GDP and balance of trade—the fundamental metrics that dictate whether we succeed or fail as a nation.
I tabled the new clause before we saw the abject, lamentable piece of work that the Government produced last Thursday: the 70-odd skimpy pages of the White Paper, 10% of which is actually white or blocked out. It is the whitest White Paper I think the House has ever seen. I contrast that with the 200-odd page report that the Treasury produced ahead of the referendum, which detailed the minutiae of all the impacts anticipated as a result of the changes in respect of GDP—[Interruption.] They chunter on the Government Front Bench, but when the Prime Minister was sat on that Bench as Home Secretary, she signed up to every line of that Treasury report, so it is entirely legitimate for the country to ask whether she is now living a lie as to what she thinks the impact of Brexit will be. Is she deceiving the country about whether this is going to turn out well for us, or not?
Let us not forget that the Treasury report suggested that the net impact on GDP of our leaving the European Union was going to be in the order of £45 billion per annum within 15 years. That is a third of the NHS budget. It would require a 10p increase in the basic rate of taxation to fill that black hole. It may well be entirely untrue. Perhaps it was just an estimate by experts in the Treasury that we should no longer believe, but if so, the Government need to come clean and tell us the current estimate.
Now that we know what the Government are planning to do—now that we know that we are gunning for the rock-hard Brexit that they hate to hear about on the Government Benches—what will the impact be? What will be the impact on trade? The Government were very  clear about that previously. Under any circumstances, leaving the European Union will reduce trade by this country. It will make us “permanently poorer”, according to the Treasury, as a result of reduced trade, reduced activity and reduced receipts, which will force the Government to increase and prolong austerity. Those are the stakes we are playing for on behalf of our constituents in this debate.
It seems to me entirely right that if this House is to be worthy of the name of the Houses of Parliament, and if it is going to do its job as it is meant to and as it has done for centuries, we need to see the detail. We need to be clear about what this is going to mean for my constituents and for my children. If it is anything like the black picture that was previously painted, we must have a final, meaningful vote in this House on the terms.
We cannot allow this country to drift out of the European Union on a bad deal—on World Trade Organisation terms—which would mean that the £45 billion black hole in our public finances was realised. We cannot allow that to happen for future generations, and we will be held accountable by those future generations if this House sits by, supine and pusillanimous, allowing this legislation to be waved through the House for political purposes—that is, to end the 30-year civil war on the Tory Benches. I cannot stand for that, and we should not stand for that in this House. We should see the detail and hold the Government to account, and I will continue to do that throughout this debate.

Wes Streeting: I rise to speak to new clause 56, which was tabled in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope it will pick up cross-party support, because it places the future of our economy and of jobs and trade at the centre of the debate, which is where those matters should be. In leaving the European Union, as people have voted to do, there remains the outstanding question of what happens about our membership of the single market and the customs union. Contrary to what we were told earlier by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), those were not clear issues during the referendum. There were differences of opinion on the remain side and on the leave side. Given that ambiguity on something so important, it is quite right that Parliament, in taking back control, should at least give the Government a steer about the future trading relationship we would like to see.
As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world, giving us unfettered access to half a billion consumers throughout the European continent.

Anna Soubry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at best unfortunate that his Front Bench team has not used its Opposition Supply days to have exactly that debate and, indeed, a vote on the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people?

Wes Streeting: I have a lot of respect for how the right hon. Lady has conducted herself during the debate, but her criticisms of our Front Bench team, particularly the shadow Brexit Ministers, are particularly unfair. In any case, her criticism of our Front Bench team would carry  more weight in this House if she was clearer about which voting Lobby she is going to be walking through on several crucial issues. It is all very well taking to the airways and speaking in the newspapers about the fight she will put up on these issues, but she has to put her vote where her mouth is.

Anna Soubry: I have made it clear that I very much hope the Government will see good sense, as is the case in much of the wording of new clause 110, and that some sort of compromise and sense can be achieved. I make it clear that in the absence of that I will perhaps find myself with no alternative but to go against my Government, which is the last thing I want to do.

Wes Streeting: That is terribly disappointing.
As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world. We have heard a lot about global trade and our relationship with the rest of the world, but what is often overlooked is that membership of the European single market and customs union facilitates global trade. In fact, the EU has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the United States of America, China, Canada, Japan, Russia, India and Brazil. Every single sector of our economy will be affected by the decisions that our Government make and the outcome of the negotiations.
Last week, the cat was let out of the bag—or should I say, with reference to the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that the rabbit was let out of Alice’s wonderland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the idea that we will leave the most advanced and sophisticated free trade agreement in the world and countries around the world will be queuing up to give us as favourable terms that are as good for our economy is fanciful.
If that were not bad enough, we should listen to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). My jaw dropped when I heard him utter these words. He said that the Prime Minister has chosen
“not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1034.]
We are leaving the European Union and there is a real risk that the Prime Minister is going to drive a coach and horses through the biggest single trade agreement and free trade area in the world, of which we are part, divorce us from the single market and the customs union, with implications for jobs, trade and investment, as well for the jobs of my constituents and the constituents of every Member of this House, and yet the economy is not the priority in this negotiation. That is an outrageous prospectus. How could any member of the Conservative party support a prospectus that does not place the economy at the forefront of our departure from the European Union? It is reckless and irresponsible. If the Opposition were behaving like that, the Government would attack us and say that we lack economic credibility. It is an absolute outrage that that lot on the Government Benches do not even put the economy on the agenda.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wes Streeting: I am sorry, but I have given way already, and I am really conscious that others want to contribute. The Government should be seeking to get the best possible trading relationship with the European  Union. I cannot fathom why the Prime Minister is not setting out to keep Britain in a reformed single market. Margaret Thatcher was the architect—

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wes Streeting: I will not give way. I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion so that other Members can come in. By the way, Mr Howarth, it is outrageous that we have not had enough time to debate these substantial issues.
Margaret Thatcher was the architect of the single market. The Prime Minister could be the architect of a reformed single market. As for the consequences, the choices and the trade-offs that lie ahead, whether on rules, freedom of movement or our financial contribution, we should not give this Government a blank cheque. They have not earned it. Any Government who enter a process such as this and say that the economy is not the priority do not deserve the trust of this House, and do not deserve the trust of the British people.

Caroline Lucas: I very much support the amendments that are designed to increase parliamentary scrutiny and I have put my name to many of them. I also support those amendments that would give the right to remain to EU nationals now here. That is a moral issue, which should be guaranteed now, not some kind of transactional calculation.
I wish to raise the issue of transitional arrangements, which has not yet been discussed and which is covered by my new clause 36. I welcome the White Paper’s recognition that, if a deal can be successfully secured within a two-year period that starts when article 50 is triggered, we will not leave the EU literally overnight. There will be a phased implementation to give businesses the chance to adapt. That is not the same thing as needing a period of transition should two years not be sufficient time to reach an agreement. To have no idea of what that agreement will be is a glaring omission and that is what my new clause seeks to address. It would put in place a transitional arrangement to govern UK-EU trade relations during the period, if necessary, between when the UK leaves the EU and when a longer term agreement is concluded.
Given the short time available—it is expected to be two years, but in reality it will be more like 18 months given the requirement to bring the deal before MPs, the European Parliament and so on—the only option available if a deal has not been secured is to send Britain over a cliff edge. We would face having to leave the EU effectively overnight, crashing out of the EU on WTO-only terms. The Government have stated clearly in their White Paper that they want to avoid cliff edges, but at the moment they have done nothing to stay away from this one—perhaps they have been too busy looking the other way over the Atlantic and have simply not noticed it.
My new clause would provide a safety net. Given that both France and Germany will be preoccupied with national elections for much of this year and that the UK team has limited negotiating capacity and relative inexperience, it seems likely that two years will not be sufficient time to get the best deal for Britain. If we  come to the end of the two-year period, we need a plan that is not just the default option of the wild west that is the WTO.
The Prime Minister says that she has unanimous agreement with the other 27 member states, and that getting that unanimous agreement is an option. We need to know that the option of continuing the negotiations has been specifically discussed, and we need to know it before we trigger article 50, otherwise we risk yet more uncertainty for our economy, for the citizens living in the EU and for all of our constituents. It is like jumping out of a plane to escape someone we have fallen out with but failing to double check that there is a parachute in the pack strapped on our back. What possible reason would anyone have for being so complacent or foolhardy?
Exiting the EU is really about two separate processes—

James Cleverly: rose—

Caroline Lucas: I will not give way, because there is no time.
Many in the EU want us to conclude the divorce element, which comes with a potential bill of €60 billion, before discussing a trade deal. We must not forget that this is a negotiation. Article 50 covers only administrative Brexit, not the legal or trade aspects. If, after two years, we do not even have a basic divorce deal, it is possible that tempers will fray and patience dwindle, and the prospect of starting negotiations on trade deals in such circumstances is unlikely—to put it mildly.
The 27 other countries are likely to want the divorce settlement agreed via the courts, so trade negotiations may not be possible even if the political will is there. For all of those reasons, we need these transitional arrangements in place. I did not give way to Members, because I wished to allow time for others to speak. Let me just reiterate how frustrating it is that, in a debate of this importance, we are having to rattle through it at a ridiculous rate.

George Howarth: I call Jim Shannon. Before he starts, may I say that there is one more Member to be accommodated in the time available? I realise that time is tight, but if he could be brief that would be helpful.

Jim Shannon: I must start by thanking the Government for keeping the promise in the referendum. The Government said that they would listen to the will of the people and, in true democratic form, they have adhered to that. People in the referendum said that they wanted article 50 to be triggered by 31 March. That is part of the exceptional circumstances under which we are operating, and that is why we are debating this matter tonight.
My constituency voted 54% to 46% to leave the EU—

Margaret Ritchie: rose—

Jim Shannon: No, I will not give way.
With that in mind, it is clear that we wish to see the Bill make progress. I hope that we will not face more efforts to derail the process today. The train is en route and is going at a steady pace. Our duty and the duty of  Government is to set the tracks in the right way—a strong and safe track—to carry us out of Europe and back to independence.
As a Northern Ireland MP, specific issues relating to our border with the Republic of Ireland, our businesses, our farming community and other communities are unique to us. I have every faith in our Prime Minister and her team and the discussions that she had with the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland just last week. The body language and the verbal contact were positive, and we should have every faith in what goes forward.
I just want to refer to new clauses 6 and 14. There is an argument that they do not make it clear to whom the protections apply, and that is to do with their scope. I am proud of the fact that I hail from a constituency that has a massive agri-food industry, which includes businesses that not only supply to the UK, but are globally recognised and trusted. I have manufacturers which ship to the middle east, America and Europe, and are now branching out to the far east. Mash Direct, a major employer in my constituency, employs some 40% of its workforce from eastern Europe. For Willowbrook Foods, the figure is 60%. We also have Lakeland Dairies, which covers Pritchitts Foods and Rich Sauces. All those businesses provide some 2,000 jobs in total.
Some of the workers have met and married locals, so there must be no road blocks to their ability to remain and work in this country and live their lives. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Northern Ireland a couple of months ago and saw some of those factories and spoke to the people. She told me that she was very keen to ensure that the people working in the factories will have security of tenure and I fully support that.
However, I must underline my opening remarks and say that those who are living, working and integrating in our society and local economy deserve our protection. The Prime Minister is well within her rights to ensure that those who live and work here, or who are married to a British person, should have the ability to remain. None the less, there is no doubt that we must curb migration, which does not enhance life in the UK in relation to economic migrants. We must also ensure that our paramount concern is allowing businesses to continue to retain their workforce without fear and to have the ability unequivocally to offer job security to that workforce in order to keep the workers right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Julian Knight: I will keep my comments brief as I am aware of the shortage of time. I was for remain in the referendum mainly because of the potential for short and medium-term economic dislocation, particularly within my constituency, which is likely to have among the highest trade surpluses with the EU, mostly off the bonnet of the Jaguar Land Rover cars that we sell into the single market. The debate was lost, and I still think we face difficult times ahead.
I believe in free trade. We have to strike out as best we can, but it will be tough in a world of growing protectionism. When we leave the EU, the key is to make the best possible deal. For me, that does not mean having membership of the single market. During the referendum campaign and for years before, the message on the doorsteps was loud and clear: no freedom of movement. People do not want freedom of movement, but the single  market comes with that requirement so that is off the table straightaway, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
The difficulty with being in the customs union is that we would not be able to have our own trade deals with the rest of the world. We would be hamstrung. The European economic area, customs unions and single market membership are antechambers to entering the EU. We are leaving the EU. We are a country of 65 million people with a sophisticated, large economy, so it is completely inappropriate to have that type of model. We need our own model, and any attempts to frustrate that with amendments or to make the Government expose their hand too early will damage our negotiations.

David Jones: This short Bill has attracted a large number of new clauses that fall into a number of broad categories. I will first deal with the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which has engaged the attention of a large number of hon. and right hon. Members. From listening to the debate, I am clear that there is actually a considerable amount of common ground across the Chamber. The Government also agree that parliamentary scrutiny is essential as we withdraw from the European Union. Indeed, the whole object of leaving the European Union is to ensure that our Parliament can take back of our own laws. For that purpose, scrutiny is essential.
I recognise the thoughtfulness in the wording of many of the amendments that seek to formalise the mode of scrutiny, but it will probably surprise nobody that I will not accept any of them. This is a straightforward Bill that gives us the means to respect the result of the referendum and the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the court made absolutely clear, this is about not whether we leave or the terms on which we leave, but simply the mechanics under which we trigger the process of leaving. In many cases, the amendments discussed today have virtually nothing to do with the Bill, and I resist them for two principal reasons. First, many are unnecessary in that what they seek to achieve is effectively already being done by the Government. No one can deny that the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) recognised, has been assiduous in his engagement with Parliament. The process has been the source of intense scrutiny over the past seven months.

Stephen Gethins: Will the Minister tell us whether reassuring EU nationals is unnecessary?

David Jones: I will come to EU nationals later. As I explained a moment ago, I am currently dealing with the issue of scrutiny, not with the issue of EU nationals.
One can see from the Secretary of State’s record of engagement that he has given an oral statement on an almost monthly basis—far more than the bimonthly or quarterly updates to Parliament requested in the new clauses. Ministers from across Government have been at this Dispatch Box many times to debate our EU exit. The Prime Minister has given a statement after every Council, including one today. That is in addition to holding debates on the EU exit in Government time, and 15 appearances at Select Committees by Ministers and officials from all Departments.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased that the Minister understands that parliamentary scrutiny is essential, but we have heard from Government Back Benchers that everything will have to close down once the negotiations begin. Therefore, what has happened in the past seven months is not, strictly speaking, relevant to what will happen over the next two years. The purpose of new clause 3 and new clause 28 is to provide forward-looking scrutiny.

David Jones: I understand the hon. Lady’s point. However, it is not the case that everything will, as she puts it, “close down”. There will certainly be negotiations and it is important that they continue, to a certain extent, with privacy. At the same time, the Government have made it clear, time after time, that we fully appreciate the need for engagement with and scrutiny by Parliament, provided, of course, that it does not adversely affect the negotiations.

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that the final deal should in fact be scrutinised by the British people, who should have the final say on whether it represents their reasonable expectations when they voted to leave? If it does not, they should have the chance to stay in the EU.

David Jones: The British people have had their say very clearly: they have instructed this Parliament that they wish to leave the European Union. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that result, but that is the hard fact.
We have aimed at all times scrupulously to fulfil Parliament’s legitimate need for information, and we will continue to do so. As well as keeping Parliament informed, we will pay regard to all the motions passed on the outcome of negotiations associated with the Bill—as proposed in new clause 176—just as we have already paid regard to the motions passed on Opposition days on 12 October and 7 December.
On the provisions of new clause 3 concerning information sharing, the Secretary of State has been clear since the very early days following the referendum that he will keep Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as the negotiations progress. The new clause asks us to reaffirm that position so that Parliament receives the same documents that the European Parliament or any of its committees receive from the Council or the Commission.
The Government are absolutely resolute that the House will not be at an information disadvantage compared with the European Parliament, but the new clause is flawed, simply because the United Kingdom Government may not be privy to what information is passed confidentially between the Commission, or the other EU institutions, and the Parliament. In the same way, the House would not expect the Government to pass all our documents relating to a highly sensitive negotiation to the other side.
What I can do, however, is confirm that the Government will keep Parliament well informed, and as soon as we know how the EU institutions will share their information, we will give more information on what Parliament will receive and on the mechanisms for that, including on the provision of arrangements for scrutiny of confidential documents.
The second category of amendments and new clauses, which, again, I must resist, because they pre-judge the negotiations to follow, ask for formal reporting on myriad subjects or for votes on unilateral commitments. The exact structure of the negotiations has not yet been determined and may very well be a matter for negotiation itself. Therefore, setting an arbitrary reporting framework makes no sense at all. There will be times when there is a great deal to report on, and times when there is very little. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have already made serious undertakings as to how they will report to the House.

Chris Leslie: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know there are a lot of issues to be covered. However, to take just the example of the European arrest warrant, could he at least give us an indication of what the Government’s objectives are? Does he want us to stay part of it?

David Jones: Clearly, we require, and we are looking to achieve, close co-operation with the European Union on security matters, but, again, these will be a matter for negotiation, and as the negotiations progress, we will keep the House informed.
The commitments that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given are important. That is why the Government published the White Paper on our negotiating position last week, with an introduction by the Prime Minister, once again stating our clear aims for the negotiations. That includes, for example, the implementation phases referred to by hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—those are part of our objectives.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

David Jones: No, I will not give way, because I have little time.
The Secretary of State announced in the recent White Paper that there will be a further White Paper published on the great repeal Bill so that Parliament can be fully informed of the provisions of the Bill in good time. After that, the Government will continue upholding their commitment through the primary and secondary legislation that will undoubtedly be required.
New clauses that ask for specific reporting to Parliament after article 50 is invoked, including new clauses 3, 20, 22, 29, 51, 111 to 130, and 151—on our relationship with EU agencies, competition policy, environmental regulations, the UK renewables sector and virtually every other aspect of our relationship with the EU—are dangerous. They would bind us to an inflexible timetable of updates as we try to navigate a complex set of negotiations.

Graham Stringer: I am following the Minister’s speech carefully. Does he agree that it is a mistake to put the procedures of this House into primary legislation, giving the courts an unnecessary locus to interfere with our affairs?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. If these provisions were put into the Bill, there is no doubt that they would become justiciable, therefore leading to further delay. What this country requires at the moment is certainty and speed, and instead we would have uncertainty and delay.

Caroline Lucas: Would the Minister acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that a new trade agreement will not be agreed in a very tight two-year period? If he does acknowledge that that is a risk, why will he not put in place a transitional arrangement to protect our businesses from crashing out of the EU without such an arrangement?

David Jones: I can go no further than what I have already said. Of course, transitional arrangements require bilateral agreement. We have already indicated that that is what we are aiming at, but it takes two to tango in this regard.
Amendment 78 would require the Foreign Secretary to publish a work programme for UKRep for the duration of the negotiating period. This is simply an attempt to delay notification by creating new obligations on and impediments for the Government.
I turn now to a matter that has, quite understandably, exercised a large number of colleagues. I want to refer to these amendments and new clauses in detail. They relate to the status of EU citizens. Providing certainty for this group of people is an important issue for the Government. That is why the Prime Minister, in her speech, made it one of our 12 priority objectives for negotiations.

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

David Jones: I will not give way, I am afraid—I have very little time.
While these amendments call for different cut-off dates and vary in wording and terminology, they all share the same aim—to guarantee the status of EU nationals currently in the UK. The Government wholeheartedly agree with this aim. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, most recently this very afternoon, securing the status of EU nationals is one of the foremost priorities of this Government. We have stood ready to reach an agreement from the beginning, because it is not in anyone’s interest to allow any uncertainty over this issue to continue.

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

David Jones: I will not give way because I have little time.
As the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon, the Government recognise that European citizens who are resident in the UK make a vital contribution both to our economy and to our communities. That contribution was highlighted very personally in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). Without them, we would all be poorer, not least our important public services such as the national health service.

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

Alan Brown: rose—

David Jones: I will not give way any further.
This is less an issue of principle than of timing, with a few EU countries insisting that there can be no negotiation without notification, and that therefore nothing can be settled until article 50 is triggered. We could not be clearer about our determination to resolve this issue at the earliest possible opportunity, ensuring that the  status of UK nationals in the EU is similarly protected. Some hon. Members have called for a unilateral guarantee now, but we have a very clear duty to UK citizens living in other EU member states, of whom there are about 1 million, to look after their interests and provide as much certainty as possible for their futures as well. Some hon. Members have suggested that we should, in effect, offer a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK while at the same time failing to achieve security for our own nationals abroad. That is a course that would carry the risk of a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty for them, which we are not prepared to accept. Only after we have passed this Bill into law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50—

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Jones: I will take no further interventions; I am sorry. Only after the Bill has become law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50 and thus provide certainty not only to EU nationals living within our borders, but to our nationals overseas.
New clause 33 calls on the Prime Minister to set out a draft framework, especially with regard to the new immigration system, prior to notification. We have already set out in our White Paper that we will introduce an immigration Bill, and I reassure colleagues that Parliament will have a clear opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. The great repeal Bill will not change our immigration system; that will be done by a separate immigration Bill and subsequent secondary legislation. Nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether they are already resident in the UK or moving from the UK, without Parliament’s approval.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job in this position on behalf of the British people. We are all concerned about our constituents who are EU citizens and who want certainty on this matter, but I am advising my constituents who express concern to me that they should write to their own Governments, who are standing in the way of sorting out this problem. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that foreign Governments who are standing in the way of a settlement on the matter are left in no doubt that we find that objectionable?

David Jones: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Alan Brown: rose—

David Jones: Bear with me. This will be a matter for negotiation in due course, but ultimately we must all be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with human beings—families, and people who are concerned about their futures and their careers. Not only do we have a duty in that regard, but there is a duty right across the European Union to protect the interests of those individuals.

Margaret Ferrier: rose—

David Jones: I will give way in a moment. I can tell the House that I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with my EU counterparts. They assure me that they fully understand that it is an issue of simple humanity that must be put at the top of the agenda  when the negotiations commence. We must wait until the negotiations commence, and until they do, we must not make any concessions.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I want to talk about my constituent Mr Joerg Nueter, who is from Germany and who came to see me on Friday. He has lived in Scotland for almost four years, and he is understandably concerned about his future and the uncertainty surrounding his residency. There is nothing preventing the Government from providing that certainty to him and to millions tonight. Will the Minister do that now?

David Jones: We owe the primary responsibility to our citizens in EU countries, but we also owe a duty to EU nationals in this country to ensure that their interests are protected. Frankly, this is a matter for their Governments, too.
This has been an interesting, lengthy and important debate, but I must resist all the new clauses and amendments.

Matthew Pennycook: I will be very brief. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the thoughtfulness of new clause 3 and other new clauses and amendments, and I note his intention to keep the House well informed. It is deeply disappointing that he has resisted new clause 3, however, so we seek to test the will of the Committee on the matter.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 284, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.

Chris Leslie: On a point of order, Ms Engel. I seek your guidance on how right hon. and hon. Members can divide on some of these incredibly crucial issues. The knife in proceedings has curtailed not just debate but our opportunity to vote on such incredibly important matters as the European arrest warrant and the single market. What can be done? Why could we not have more votes on these new clauses?

Natascha Engel: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I should say that any further points of order will bite into the next group of amendments.
The Chairs, the Temporary Chairs and the Clerks spent a long time looking at every amendment in detail over three days, and we decided that we would put the lead new clause to a Division today and then move on to the second group. I also just want to take this opportunity to say that the Committee will vote on the issue of EU nationals on Wednesday. It is not for the Chair to explain why a decision has been taken. It has been taken, and there will be no explanation of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: On that note, unless there are any new points of order, I think that we should move on. It is important that we allow as much time as possible to debate the next group of amendments.

Wes Streeting: Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I am grateful to you. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to challenge the Chair’s decision. In the previous group, we discussed dozens of amendments, including my new clause 56 on our future relationship with the European economic area. The former Chancellor said that the economy was not the Government’s priority in the EU negotiations. What can we do to make sure the public are aware that we are taking our scrutiny seriously?

Natascha Engel: That is not a point of order. It is very close to challenging the decision of the Chair.

Alex Salmond: rose—

Natascha Engel: I am happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but the next group is on devolved legislatures, so he will be eating into the time for the minority parties.

Alex Salmond: There is no challenge to the Chair in any of these points of order. Hon. Members are entitled to point out that this programme motion is railroading debate on the biggest constitutional decision facing this country for 50 years. The Chairman’s Panel might have no alternative but to follow the programme motion, but hon. Members are entitled to challenge that programme motion.

Natascha Engel: Order. This is not about the programme motion on which the House voted. That was not a decision taken by the Chairs. I think we should move on.

Stephen Doughty: Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I simply seek clarification of something you said a few moments ago about the selection of the lead amendment to vote on in each case. Is it the case that in respect of all the groups of amendments we are going to debate over the next three days, only the lead amendment will be voted on? If so, I think it would be of great concern to all members of the Committee.

Natascha Engel: It may be, but it is not necessarily the case. For this group, we decided that only the lead amendment would lead to a Division. Let us move on.

Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. On that last point, we have to answer to our constituents. Many of them will not understand why many of the amendments that have been tabled, in which they are deeply interested, have not been chosen tonight in a very open or democratic manner.

Natascha Engel: I am going to move on. That is not a point of order. This was a decision taken by the Chair. It was a difficult decision, and I understand Members’ frustrations, but the points have been made and we really need to move on.
New Clause 4

Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)

“(1) In negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must consult, and take into account the views of, a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Commission.
(2) In the course of consulting under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations on—
(a) the terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of—
(a) the Prime Minister,
(b) Ministers of the Crown,
(c) the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative of the Scottish Government,
(d) the First Minister of Wales and a further representative of the Welsh Government, and
(e) the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a further representative of the Northern Ireland Executive.
(4) The Prime Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, determine that the Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of representatives of the governing authorities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(5) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall produce a communique after each meeting.”—(Jenny Chapman.)
This new clause would place the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee during Brexit negotiations on a statutory footing.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Jenny Chapman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Natascha Engel: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 23—Duty to Consult Scottish Government on Article 50 negotiations applying to Scotland—
“(1) In negotiating an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, a Minister of the Crown must consult Scottish Government Ministers before beginning negotiations in any area that would make provisions applying to Scotland.
(2) A provision applies to Scotland if it—
(a) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament;
(b) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government;
(c) modifies the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland, and Scottish nationals resident elsewhere in the EU;
(d) would have the effect of removing the UK from the EU single market.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown consults Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), or on any other matter relating to Article 50 negotiations, the discussions should be collaborative and discuss each government’s requirements of the future relationship with the EU.
(4) Where a Minister of the Crown has consulted Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), the Minister of the Crown must lay a full report setting out the details of those consultations before both Houses of Parliament, and must provide a copy to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.”
New clause 24—Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)—duty to report—
“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) must publish regular reports on the impact of negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union on the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(2) The reports shall be published at intervals of no less than two months, and a report must be published after every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations).
(3) The reports shall include—
(a) a full minute from the most recent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations);
(b) oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations; and
(c) any other information that the members of the Committee, in concord, judge to be non-prejudicial to the progress of the Article 50 negotiations.
(4) The reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and a copy of the reports must be transmitted to the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New clause 26—Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.”
New clause 139—Requirement for debate on process for exiting the EU—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—
(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,
(b) the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords,
(c) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, and
(e) the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly
have each certified that a debate has been held in their respective legislatures in relation to the First Report of the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee, Session 2016-17, HC815.”
New clause 140—Meeting with the First Ministers of Devolved Administrations—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—
(a) the Prime Minister has met with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss the formal notification process and;
(b) the Joint Ministerial Committee has unanimously agreed to the Prime Minister making such a notification.”
New clause 144—Representation of devolved administrations in withdrawal negotiations—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until she has committed to ensuring that the devolved administrations will have direct representation in the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
New clause 147—Scottish Government ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Scottish Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Scotland under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 148—Welsh Government ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Welsh Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Wales under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 149—Northern Ireland Executive ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Northern Ireland Executive ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Northern Ireland under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 158—Continued levels of EU funding for Wales—
“Before the Prime Minister exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.
New clause 159—Differentiated agreement for Wales—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 160—Endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must give a commitment that Her Majesty’s Government shall submit the terms of any proposed agreement with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal to—
(a) the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
(c) the Scottish Parliament
and that the Government will not proceed with any agreement on those terms unless it has been approved by each of the devolved assemblies.”
This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to gaining the endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 162—Review into the UK constitution—
“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom following the repatriation of powers from the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom when leaving the European Union, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 168—National Convention—
“(1) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to establish a National Convention on Exiting the European Union.
(2) The National Convention shall advise Her Majesty’s Government on its priorities during negotiations with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(3) Ministers of the Crown must take into account the views of the National Convention before signing any agreements with the European Commission on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(4) Membership of the National Convention shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include—
(a) elected mayors,
(b) elected representatives of local government,
(c) representatives of universities and higher education,
(d) representatives of universities and higher education,
(e) representatives of business organisations,
(f) members of the Scottish Parliament,
(g) members of the National Assembly of Wales,
(h) members of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(i) members of the European Parliament,
(j) other representatives considered by the Secretary of State to represent expertise and experience of British civil society.
(5) The National Convention must convene before—
(a) 12 months have elapsed after this Act has received Royal Assent, or
(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.
(6) The National Convention shall meet in public.
(7) The National Convention must, following its convening, lay a report before Parliament before—
(a) 15 months have elapsed after this Act receives Royal Assent, or
(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Convention of representatives across of levels of Government, regions and sectors, to meet and produce a report recommending negotiating priorities, to better reflect the needs of the regions of the UK.
New clause 145—Differentiated Agreement for Scotland—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that the United Kingdom will seek a differentiated agreement for Scotland to remain in the European Economic Area.”
New clause 150—Priority in negotiations: Northern Ireland—
“It must be a priority in negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU for the Prime Minister to seek terms that would not give rise to any external impediment to the people of the island of Ireland exercising their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, to then be treated as a member State of the European Union, if that is their wish, subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”
This new clause seeks to preserve the key constitutional precept of the Belfast Agreement, in respect of the principle of consent, applying to future EU membership of a united Ireland agreed by a referendum under the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Amendment 88, in clause1,page1,line3,at end insert
“, provided the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is obtained prior to such notification regarding alterations to the legislative competence of that Assembly and the executive competence of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, consistent with constitutional convention.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to changes in the powers of the Assembly and powers of the Northern Ireland Executive would be obtained prior to triggering Article 50, consistent with constitutional convention.
Amendment 91,page1,line3,at end insert “following consultation with—
(a) the First Minister of Scotland,
(b) the First Minister of Wales,
(c) the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland,
(d) the Chair of the English Local Government Association the Mayor of London.”
Amendment 46,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) unless the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly for Wales agree motions to consent to the notification.”
Amendment 55, page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Northern Ireland Executive has been formed following elections in Northern Ireland on 2 March 2017.”
Amendment 60,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the British-Irish Council has met to discuss the immediate effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the United Kingdom’s land border with Ireland.”
Amendment 63,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has addressed the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly of Wales on the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
Amendment 90,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will publish a report into the powers repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom and which do not fall within the Reservations listed in Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, outlining their impact on the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to publish a report into the repatriated EU powers which fall under the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales before notifying under subsection (1).
Amendment 92,page1,line3,at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the powers expected to be repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom which are within the competences of Northern Ireland Ministers and the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
Amendment 18,page1,line5,at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must publish and lay before the House a report setting out how the devolved nations of the United Kingdom will be consulted with, and involved, in the negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union.”
Amendment 86,page1,line5,at end insert
“with the exception of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949, and subject to—
(a) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland of 10 April 1998, and
(b) preserving acquired rights in Northern Ireland under European Union law.”
This amendment requires the power to notify withdrawal to be exercised with regard to the constitutional, institutional and rights provisions of the Belfast Agreement.
New clause 109—Provisions of the Good Friday Agreement—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent Agreements agreed between the United Kingdom and Ireland since 1998, including—
(a) the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland;
(b) citizenship rights;
(c) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement;
(d) human rights and equality;
(e) the principle of consent; and
(f) the status of the Irish language.”

Jenny Chapman: New clause 4, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, requires the Government to consult and take into account the views of a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Union. The Labour party is trying to be reasonable in this new clause. We do not want to block Brexit, but to make sure that the Government do Brexit well. The new clause is very simple and, I think, very sensible.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales must be included and taken into account throughout the process by which the UK Government negotiate our terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and equally importantly, negotiate the framework for our future relationship  with the EU. New clause 4 would place the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing. The Committee would include the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, the First Minister of Scotland and an additional representative, the First Minister of Wales and an additional representative, the First Minister of Northern Ireland and their Deputy, and a further representative of Northern Ireland.
The Labour Party is committed to enabling the devolved Administrations to have their voices heard in this debate. Amendment 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), proposes that, in addition, the London Mayor should be consulted—and Labour would, of course, support this position.

Alan Brown: The hon. Lady talked about voices being heard. Her party’s position on Second Reading was to vote for article 50 so that Labour could come forward with amendments. Those amendments in the last round have just been defeated. If all the amendments are defeated, will Labour stick to the line of walking through the Lobbies with the Tories on Third Reading?

Jenny Chapman: I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is incredibly defeatist. We intend to win with our amendments; we are not here to anticipate defeat. We have very sensible and very reasonable requests to put to the Government, and we expect them to accept our amendments.
In the Miller case, the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the devolved legislatures did not have a legal power to block the Government from triggering article 50, but that does not mean that devolved legislatures can be ignored. A veto does not exist, but it is only right for the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales to be respected, and for the different desires, concerns, aspirations and needs of the devolved Administrations to be taken fully into account.

Ian Paisley Jnr: As the hon. Lady will know, the White Paper mentions the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and clearly states that they will be given the right to be consulted. Why does that need to be included in legislation?

Jenny Chapman: I had anticipated that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, consistent as he is in raising such points. If he will forgive me, I shall deal with it later in my speech.

Oliver Letwin: If the Government wish to proceed with article 50, and if SNP Members do not wish to proceed with it and that is the position of the Scottish Government, how are the United Kingdom Government meant to take this into account? What happens if someone takes into account the opposing view?

Jenny Chapman: I agree that it is difficult. [Laughter.] I do not think it is funny, but it is difficult. Our amendment does not require consensus, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads it closely, he will see that it has been very carefully worded. The fact that consensus is not easy does not mean that we should not at least try.

Chris Bryant: Is there not a bigger issue here? Many of the areas that have heretofore been the responsibility of the European Union are entirely devolved within  the United Kingdom—for instance, agriculture and environmental protection. There is no way in which the Government will be able to proceed effectively with a deal on behalf of the United Kingdom unless they have managed to take the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments with them.

Jenny Chapman: Of course that is true. That is the spirit in which we tabled the new clause, and we hope it is the spirit in which the Government will consent to accept it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jenny Chapman: I have given way a few times already. I shall make a bit of progress, and then I will be happy to give way again.
It is true that, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, consensus may not be possible, but it is deeply desirable, and probably in the national interest. Although competing priorities may ultimately prevent it from being achieved, we really ought to try.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Chapman: Oh, go on then.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not the truth that the hon. Lady knows, we know and the whole House knows that the Scottish National party has no interest in reaching consensus on this point, and no desire to do so? She knew that before she put her name to the new clause. Conservative Members will be saying, “Surely this is just a wrecking new clause.”

Jenny Chapman: The hon. Gentleman needs to read the new clause a bit more carefully. It is clearly not a wrecking new clause. Nothing that it desires cannot be achieved. The fact that consensus may not be possible—although we have not even tried—does not mean that the interests of the people of Scotland ought to be ignored.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jenny Chapman: I am spoilt for choice, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. I support the desire of Labour Front Benchers to put these matters on a statutory footing, but does she agree that, particularly when Governments have come forward with a clear plan—as the First Minister of Wales has—and there are serious questions for the UK Government, the UK Government must come forward with some answers to enable a negotiation to proceed?

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend is right. I am in danger of reading out my speech before I reach the part in question, but I can say that Wales has succeeded in reaching something close to a cross-party consensus.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way? I want to be helpful.

Jenny Chapman: I want to say more about the issue of Wales. The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland—[Hon. Members: “Alex is being helpful.”] Alex is being helpful, I am told. I will give way to him.

Alex Salmond: I know that the hon. Lady, unlike Conservative Members, will have read the paper that the Scottish Government released before Christmas—the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is nodding—but does she not remember that on 15 July last year, the Prime Minister said that she would not invoke article 50 until there was an agreed UK position backed by the devolved Administrations? Are Conservative Members saying that the Prime Minister was being anything less than truthful?

Jenny Chapman: That intervention would probably be better aimed at the Government Front Bench.
The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be as accommodating as possible. For example, the financial support for deprived areas that has benefited communities for decades is now in question. Whether or not the Government deal with this issue as part of the passage of this Bill, they need to know that the Labour party will fight hard for the grants to such areas to be secured into the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jenny Chapman: I have given way quite a lot and would like to make a little more progress. Many Members will want to contribute to the debate.
New clauses 23 and 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which would receive Labour Front-Bench support should he be able to test the will of the House on the matter, strengthen further the role of the Scottish Government in making them a statutory consultee and require the Joint Ministerial Committee to report on negotiations. These are reasonable demands that the Government ought to seek to meet, and the same status should of course be offered to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is fair to say that the White Paper lacks substance or detail. That is particularly true on Northern Ireland. The land border, changes to competences and, perhaps most significant of all, the importance of ensuring continued adherence to agreements made as part of the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements must be maintained by the Government.
New clause 109, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), states that the Prime Minister must recommit to the Good Friday agreement. I can see no reason why the Government should not wish to do so, and hope that the Minister will indicate whether or not he intends to agree to my hon. Friends’ amendments when he responds this evening.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Lady mentions the Good Friday agreement and the commitments in it, but as it was between the parties in Northern Ireland, the Government at Westminster and the Government in the Irish Republic, how do our discussions about Brexit have any impact on the Good Friday agreement?

Jenny Chapman: What we are asking for, and what new clause 109 asks for, is certainty. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
These amendments do not seek to obstruct the passage of this Bill—not in the least. They are born of a view that Brexit will be better for all the people of Britain if all communities up and down the country are properly involved. The Government should not hide away from this scrutiny; they ought to welcome it. Labour is not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for inclusion. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not just another stakeholder group to be consulted. The four Governments, although they are not for this purpose equals, must work together.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady speaks of veto. She will be aware—she mentioned this earlier in her speech—that the Supreme Court was unanimous on the role of the devolved Assemblies and that the decision should be taken by this place. We all agree on consultation, but she cannot possibly be speaking of veto, because if she does so, she is challenging the decision of the Supreme Court.

Jenny Chapman: I am not going to take it personally that the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to the beginning of my speech, but if he looks at the record he will find that his worries are unfounded. He also might like to read the amendment that we have tabled and find that he has nothing at all to worry about.

Steve Pound: I understand the gentleness with which my hon. Friend is responding to the various interventions, but may I quietly, politely and in a modest sort of way remind her that if we read the Good Friday agreement in as much detail as many of us in the House have done, we can see that the EU is mentioned throughout, in line after line and paragraph after paragraph? The role of the EU in the peace process was crucial and must continue to be so.

Jenny Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Chapman: I will give way, but only because I cannot find my place in my speech. This is the last intervention I will take.

Hugo Swire: I am delighted to be able to afford the hon. Lady time to find her place. Should she not think about disaggregating the Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in these discussions, because they are all different, particularly Scotland? Perhaps it is time, if we are genuinely to trust the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh, for them to revisit their claim during the Brexit campaign that Scotland could somehow remain part of the EU outside the United Kingdom or have fast-track access to EU membership. That was one of the most shameful myths peddled by any party in the House.

Jenny Chapman: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to put his misgivings about the Scottish National party to one side and focus on the people of Scotland, because it is their voices that we  must ensure are heard in all this. This is going to require genuine commitment and goodwill. I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is going to find that difficult. I only hope that the Minister does not find it quite so difficult. I am sure that he already appreciates where the First Ministers will be coming from, but he needs to commit, through these new clauses and perhaps by bringing forth his own amendments as the Bill progresses, to embedding the role of the devolved Assemblies within the process. This has already been proved by the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the Welsh nationalists, who, writing together, said:
“The challenge we all face now is ensuring that as we prepare to leave the EU we secure the best possible deal for Wales. Together, we intend to rise to that challenge.”
If they can put party political differences aside and work together for the benefit of Wales, surely the Government can step up to the same challenge by accepting these new clauses and amendments. That is the right way to strengthen, and not weaken, our Union, as the Prime Minister herself says she wishes to do.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Ms Engel. I can see that Members are looking forward to this. There are a number of new clauses and amendments in this group, and Members will be pleased to know that I do not plan on speaking to all of them. I shall group them in a way that I think is sensible. There are some that are unnecessary, some that arguably do very little but run a risk of doing harm, and some that are outright vetoes on the process, which is completely unacceptable. There is one about a national convention, about which I will speak briefly, and a couple of very important ones about Northern Ireland, which I would also like to speak to.
Starting with new clause 4, to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) has just spoken, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) put his finger on it when he asked her about consensus. I think we need to explore this point further. The new clause proposes that
“the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus”.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was unlikely that any such consensus would be reached because the Scottish nationalists fundamentally disagree with our leaving the European Union. Not only that, but unlike the other First Ministers, they also do not wish to see a continuation of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] They have just confirmed that verbally in the Chamber. So it seems unlikely that consensus would be reached. The problem with putting this new clause in statute is that it would then become justiciable, as my right hon. Friend said earlier. A court could then be asked to adjudicate on whether the Secretary of State had tried hard enough to reach consensus. Even if the court then ruled that everything was fine, this would still be just a way of delaying the process.

Oliver Letwin: Did my right hon. Friend also notice that the Opposition spokesman referred to “embedding” the Scottish Government in the proposals? Does he agree that, roughly speaking, that is like Wellington being asked to embed Napoleon in his strategy for the Napoleonic wars?

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend has a much greater command of history than I do, but even with my limited reading I think he is probably about right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the hon. Member for Darlington to distinguish between the First Ministers of the different devolved nations, and I think the distinction is that the First Ministers of Northern Ireland and of Wales wish to see the continuation of the United Kingdom, but the First Minister of Scotland does not. That is material to the sensibleness of proceeding with new clause 4.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for praying me in aid; he is absolutely right. My real point is that neither the First Minister of Northern Ireland nor the First Minister of Wales sought to mislead their own communities by suggesting that they can join the EU outside the UK, which is what the SNP suggested throughout the campaign.

Mark Harper: My right hon. Friend makes that point—[Interruption.]

Stewart McDonald: On a point of order, Ms Engel. Was what the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) just said in order? He accused the First Minister of Scotland of misleading the country by stating something that Members of this House in the Scottish National party have also said, so is he by extension accusing me and my hon. Friends of misleading the Chamber?

Natascha Engel: It was not unparliamentary as the First Minister of Scotland is not a Member of this House.

Mark Harper: I am conscious that I have taken interventions from the Government Benches but not from the Opposition Benches. I give way to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

David Hanson: May I provide an example? Policing in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and policing in Northern Ireland is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The consensus may be that the Government want to withdraw from the European Union and therefore from agencies such as Eurojust and Europol, but there might need to be a view on such issues so that a consensus can be reached to enable Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved issues, to maintain policing at a local level with Ireland and other parts of the European Union.

Mark Harper: I have no issue with the Government seeking to reach a consensus. There are two issues. One, as I think the hon. Member for Darlington accepted, is that reaching a consensus is likely to be difficult, but we should try. I have no problem with Ministers trying to seek a consensus, but the danger of putting that in legislation is that we then hand over to a court the adjudication of whether Ministers have sought that consensus or whether they have tried hard enough. Even if the court ends up reaching what I would consider the right conclusion of not interfering in the process, it seems an obvious route for delay. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she will seek to take into account the views of the devolved Administrations, but I would not want that to be put into the legislation.

Ian Murray: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about distinctions, I want to make another distinction as a reminder to him and the House: the Scottish National party is not the entirety of Scotland—[Interruption.] It might like to think it is, which is evident from the reaction from the SNP Members just now. New clause 4 is carefully worded and states that the Government should seek a consensus for building the negotiation with the European Union. That is about letting the Scottish people into the process, not the Scottish National party, and the right hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the two.

Mark Harper: While the Scottish nationalists are currently in government in Scotland, I completely agree that they are not the same as the Scottish people. On the new clause, the representatives on the Joint Ministerial Committee are the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative not of the Scottish people but of the Scottish Government, so there will be two members of the Scottish nationalists whose expressed purpose, as confirmed here today, is to destroy the United Kingdom.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand how serious this issue is? Does he not understand that he will not have a UK if he keeps going on with arrogance, with intolerance and with insensitivity? We spent 30 years getting a peace process together. We do not want to see any more dead bodies. Quite simply, what is going on here, with the intolerance that some Members are showing, is scaring me. I am asking myself why I am in this place at all.

Mark Harper: I have not been intolerant to anyone. I have taken interventions from both sides of the House, and I said in my opening remarks that I will address new clauses 109 and 150, which specifically refer to Northern Ireland. I simply have not yet had a chance to get to them. I am a great supporter of the Union of the United Kingdom and, when I was Immigration Minister, I worked very closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to facilitate the common travel area and the close working together of the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, and I wish to proceed on that basis.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: Let me make some progress, because otherwise other Members will not have the opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was able to intervene on me. He is the lead name on new clause 23, on which I have a question. Subsection (2)(c) refers to
“the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland”.
It then refers to “Scottish nationals”. I do not quite understand what they are. I understand what UK nationals are, but I was not aware that there is a separate class of nationals of Scotland. Does he wish to explain to the Committee what they are? If for no other reason, not knowing what they are is reason enough to vote against the new clause.

Ian Murray: It is people who were normally resident in Scotland before they moved abroad. It is quite simple.

Mark Harper: “Scottish nationals” implies that they are somehow tied to Scotland other than by residence. If someone is English but happens to live in Scotland for five minutes, does that mean they are a Scottish national?

Ian Murray: No.

Mark Harper: But the hon. Gentleman just said that his definition of a Scottish national is someone who resided in Scotland before moving overseas. It seems to me that someone does not need to have any connection with Scotland bar the fact that they lived there for five minutes. This seems a very poorly worded new clause that is not worthy of support.

Ian Murray: rose—

Mark Harper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time.

Ian Murray: I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that his Government’s pushing through the programme motion means that we cannot have a full debate on these issues. Whether it is a beautifully worded clause or a badly worded clause, EU nationals should be given the right to stay by this Government today, and we should be fighting to make sure that UK nationals living in the EU have their rights, too. The Government could do that now and, if they did, we would not need to press these new clauses.

Mark Harper: I will not address that issue now, as we debated it at length with the previous group of amendments. A number of colleagues spoke, so it has had sufficient debate.
The next grouping contains a number of new clauses proposing different mechanisms for giving different parts of the United Kingdom a veto on the entire process and, for that reason, I do not think they should be accepted. New clause 26, tabled by the Scottish nationalists, would effectively give the Joint Ministerial Committee a veto on the process. That means a single member of the Joint Ministerial Committee could veto the entire process, which would not be welcome.

Ian Blackford: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, in presenting this proposal to the UK Government, the Scottish Government are very much seeking that consensus and compromise. We understand that the people of England have voted to leave the EU, and we do not seek to frustrate that, but what we ask is that this Parliament also recognises that not just the SNP but the Scottish Parliament has empowered the Government to act in our interests to make sure that we remain within the single market. That respect has to work two ways, and it is about the UK Government working with us. If they do not do that, we know what the answer is. Quite frankly, we should not be in this place.

Mark Harper: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—and I am sure my colleagues on the Government Benches will find this slightly repetitive—but he said that the people of England voted and I must point out that that is not the case. There was a United Kingdom referendum, one of two referendums over the past few years, both of whose outcomes I respect. There was a vote by the people of Scotland to remain in the United  Kingdom, so it therefore follows that the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU was a UK decision. It was a single vote and the UK decided to leave the EU. Scotland did not have a separate decision; it was a UK decision. I respect both referendums and I am going to proceed on that basis.

Joanna Cherry: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman to understand where Scottish National party Members are coming from. During the Scottish independence referendum, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, Ruth Davidson, told Scottish voters that the way to guarantee their EU citizenship was to vote to remain part of the UK. He enjoyed a cosy little exchange a moment ago about the First Minister allegedly misleading people, but it is clear that the leader of his party in Scotland misled voters during the independence referendum. Would he now like to take the opportunity to apologise for that misleading statement?

Mark Harper: I would not. The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland—I am pleased to say that she is the Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and the latest opinion polls are showing Conservative support rising and Labour support falling—campaigned strongly both for the maintenance of the UK and for the UK to remain in the EU. I was disappointed by the latter result, as was she, but I do not think she misled anybody and therefore I do not feel the need to apologise.

Joanna Cherry: rose—

Mark Harper: I have taken the hon. and learned Lady’s intervention and I will now make some progress.

Michael Gove: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mark Harper: Of course.

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend might not have had the chance to follow the Scottish independence referendum as closely as some of us. During that referendum the current SNP First Minister said that if the UK remained, the NHS in Scotland would be privatised. So if anyone should apologise for misleading the public, Nicola Sturgeon should.

Mark Harper: As ever, my right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.
Let me move relatively briefly through the other provisions. New clauses 139 and 140 would both, in effect, give a veto to different parts of the UK, and therefore are unacceptable.

Ian Paisley Jnr: When the right hon. Gentleman turns to the issues affecting Northern Ireland, will he take the opportunity to address the spurious point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who said that the Belfast agreement is peppered with references to the European Union? There is one such reference on page 16, and there are three references on page 7 to the European convention on human rights, which is nothing to do with the EU. Indeed, the references to the EU  refer specifically to the mutual interdependence of the North South Ministerial Council and the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to get into a lather over that matter.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elucidating that for the House. Indeed, I detected from the expression on the face of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Darlington, that she had not found that intervention from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) entirely helpful. Perhaps she shares the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
Finally, new clauses 160 and 161, tabled by the Welsh nationalists, talk about “future trade deals” and would also give a veto to the devolved Assemblies in the UK. On that basis, the House should not support them.
New clause 168 proposes a “National Convention”. As someone who has been involved in constitutional matters for some time, I could not help but smile at that, because when I was taking a number of constitutional items through the House, national conventions, conventional committees or some other variant were usually a way of delaying matters by involving a whole load of people in things. These were usually people who are already well involved in all those things, as most members of such conventions appear to be elected Members of some body or other. Those conventions seem an extraordinary excuse to make no progress whatever.

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Mark Harper: As the hon. Lady tabled the new clause, I will of course give way to her.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I look forward to discussing this matter further in my remarks later, but perhaps I could raise a point with him. I am sure he will appreciate, as I do, the paucity of quality debate about the referendum, which remains an issue. We need to engage people in the discussion over the next two years. We should not reach the end of the negotiation period with people saying they are as ill-informed at the end as they were at the start.

Mark Harper: That is a helpful intervention, because the hon. Lady has tempted me to say a little more about her new clause, which I had not planned to do. I have looked at the membership of the national convention specified in the new clause, and it does not seem to involve any members of the public at all. It is all people who were very well represented in the referendum campaign: elected mayors; elected representatives of local government; people from universities and higher education; representatives of trade unions and trade bodies; representatives of business organisations; and Members of the Scottish Parliament—

Desmond Swayne: Not them!

Mark Harper: Yes, them, along with Members of the National Assembly of Wales and of the Northern Ireland Assembly; plus Members of the European Parliament. Finally, it gets to “other representatives”, but not just  any representatives of civil society—only those determined by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, the hon. Lady wants to give Ministers the job of deciding who should represent civil society, which seems remarkably generous of her, although rather self-defeating.

Seema Malhotra: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is vital to have the regions of England involved, as much as it is to have the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland involved, in the national debate. I am sure that, on reflection, he will realise that there is great value in the idea of a greater national conversation in which elected representatives would be able to engage with their communities and represent their views.

Mark Harper: To be honest, I thought there was quite a lot of national conversation last year. When I talked to my constituents, it seemed to me that by the end of that national conversation, they really did want to make a decision and move on. The most important thing that they want us to do is give notice under article 50 and start the negotiating process. The most common refrain I hear is from people who, because we had a referendum last year, wonder why we have not already left.

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend just ran through that list; does he agree that the people who were told that the referendum was an opportunity for them to express their opinion would find it perplexing, disturbing and not a little bit frustrating that new clause 168 would take that voice away from them and hand it back to people who are already very vocal?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend put that well. The new clause would not involve members of the public at all; it would involve people who are well involved in the debate already.

Seema Malhotra: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Harper: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again. I gave way to her twice, and we can look forward to her remarks—

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Ms Engel. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has been speaking for 22 minutes. Charming as he is, it seems that he has been filibustering the House, as he did in the previous debate, to prevent honest debate and opinion from being expressed this evening. What is going on?

Natascha Engel: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are no time limits at this stage of a Bill. There is a limited amount of time available, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) knows. He has spoken at great length and he spoke at great length on the previous group. I have been listening very carefully and he has remained in order and spoken to the amendments and new clauses. There is nothing out of order in what he has said, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the mood of the House.

Mark Harper: I have taken interventions from colleagues on both sides of the House, just as I did in the previous group, but I will take your admonition, Ms Engel, and not take so many interventions from now on.
I set out the points that I wished to cover at the beginning of my remarks. Colleagues who have been following carefully will know that I have only one point left, and I will cover it, because it is on the very important matter of Northern Ireland. Colleagues will be pleased to know that that is the last point I will make.
Two new clauses have been put forward on Northern Ireland. New clause 150 is about priority in negotiations, and it would ensure that people in Northern Ireland would have no external impediment to exercising their right of self-determination. Although it talks about bringing about a united Ireland, with which I do not agree, nothing in the process of exiting the European Union would have any impact on that. The legislation that governs the mechanisms available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do with border polls and so forth have nothing whatever to do with this process, so there is no need to accept this new clause.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall that, even in his own remarks, he talked about the questions that were raised in the context of the Scottish referendum. I am talking about whether or not an independent Scotland would have easy or ready access to the EU or whether it would have to negotiate, brand new, under article 49. If Northern Ireland were taken out of the EU as part of the UK, no article in the Lisbon treaty allows for part of a former member state entering the EU. Anybody could raise a question mark over whether or not a referendum in that context would admit Northern Ireland into the EU as part of a united Ireland. The question mark could be raised because the German precedent might not apply. The Taoiseach addressed that point last summer, and the British Government need to take it on board.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman may be guilty of jumping quite a lot of steps in advance. There is no evidence that the people of Northern Ireland have any intention, at any time in the foreseeable future, of joining the Republic of Ireland. I think that this is a case of inventing theoretical problems to get in the way of what is a perfectly sensible process.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Mark Harper: I will take one more intervention from the hon. Gentleman and then I will make some progress.

Mark Durkan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the key wording in new clause 150 comes from the Good Friday agreement itself? The paragraph appears in the agreement not just once, but twice. It is in the constitutional issue section of the agreement and it is in the agreement between the British and Irish Governments. If it was good enough and important enough to be in the Good Friday agreement and to be endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people in the north and the south, why should it not be respected now when we are being asked to reflect on how English people voted in a referendum?

Mark Harper: Again, I come back to what the hon. Gentleman just said about how the English people voted. If he looks at the separate parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. As I said earlier, this was a UK decision. The fact that different parts of the United Kingdom may have voted in different ways is not relevant. It was a United Kingdom decision, and the United Kingdom voted to leave.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: I have one more new clause to talk to and then I will sit down.
New clause 109 talks about the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, and other agreements agreed between the UK and Ireland. It lists a whole load of issues. It seems to me that the free movement of people, goods and services and so forth on the island of Ireland and citizenship rights are not guaranteed by membership of the EU. In previous legislation, such as the Ireland Act 1949, it is clear that citizens of the Republic of Ireland and citizens of the United Kingdom have reciprocal —the word “reciprocal” is important—arrangements to live in each other’s countries and to vote in each other’s countries. Irish nationals in Britain can vote in our elections. If we were to go to live in the Irish Republic, we could vote in theirs. Those arrangements will be preserved when we leave the European Union. The new clause is unnecessary.

Joanna Cherry: I am very disappointed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his contribution, because, judging from the communications that I am receiving from constituents and voters in Scotland, every word he says is putting our vote through the roof and greatly increasing the cause of a second independence referendum. I urge him and those around him please to continue in the same vein, as it is doing us the world of good.

Mark Harper: Based on the Twitter trolling that I receive, I suspect that most people contacting the hon. Lady would already have supported the nationalists in the first place. With the successful campaigning efforts of my friend, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, it seems that those of a Unionist disposition in Scotland are very much moving to support the Conservative party in Scotland, which is why she is the Leader of the Opposition there.

Natascha Engel: Order. We really must get back to the group of amendments.

Mark Harper: I have been tempted to speak for longer than I had intended.
I hope that, after running through the new clauses and amendments in this group, I have set out reasons why all of them should be opposed by those who wish to trigger article 50. If any of them are pressed to a Division, I hope the House rejects them.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
I take the House back to the morning of 24 June when the then Prime Minister, the then Chancellor and the current Foreign Secretary were missing in inaction, and the First Minister of Scotland took to the steps of Bute House to address the people of Scotland. Let us be clear: we absolutely respect how the people of England and Wales voted in the EU referendum. In turn, we ask that the way in which the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to be equally respected.
Forty-eight hours after assuming office, the Prime Minister travelled to Scotland to meet the First Minister. Ahead of her visit, the Prime Minister directly addressed the people of Scotland, stating that
“the government I lead will always be on your side. Every decision we take, every policy we take forward, we will stand up for you and your family—not the rich, the mighty or the powerful. That’s because I believe in a union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.”
That is what she said then, but I turn the Committee’s attention to page 3 of what can only be described as an executive summary, as opposed to a White Paper, in which she refers to “one nation.” Hon. Members across this House would do well to understand that, as long as the Prime Minister and the Government continue to believe that this is one nation, they will make no progress whatever in their relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not one nation; we are a Union of nations. The Government need to remember that.

Alex Salmond: I am going to do something that I have never done before—quote an extract from The Daily Telegraph. It reported on 15 July last year:
“Theresa May has indicated that…she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed ‘UK approach’ backed by Scotland.”
What does my hon. Friend think has happened to the Prime Minister’s commitment?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Interestingly, if hon. Members turn to page 17 of the so-called White Paper, they will see a change of wording. We have moved from having a “UK approach” to “seeking” to agree a UK approach—another change in the Prime Minister’s position.

Neil Gray: On that basis, is my hon. Friend surprised that the UK Government now seem willing to seek separate deals not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but for the car industry in Sunderland and for the City of London?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I will come to that issue in a moment.
The Scottish National party’s compromise amendments propose a UK approach for all of “Team UK”, which is what the Prime Minister would like to think we are. I say the amendments are a compromise because that is exactly what they are. We fundamentally believe that the best future for Scotland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom is to remain in the EU. But in the spirit of reaching a consensus—I object to people in this House who have suggested that we are not participating in the process—we have tabled 50 amendments, to which my colleagues and I will now speak. That is our involvement in the process. The First Minister of Scotland was clear that she was laying out a number of options. The ball is in the Prime Minister’s court.

Hugo Swire: In retrospect, does the hon. Lady regret the SNP’s peddling of the myth during the Brexit campaign that Scotland alone could somehow remain in the EU without any of the sanctions in the Lisbon treaty—joining the single currency of the euro and so on? Does she regret proposing that to the Scottish people as a fact, rather than as fiction, which is what it was?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The only myths in the independence referendum in Scotland were those peddled by the right hon. Gentleman’s friends in the Conservative party and those in the Labour party—that is where the myths came from. I am grateful to him for reminding the Committee, and indeed all those who are watching, that that is precisely the case.
The First Minister of Scotland has laid out a number of options, which are included in the paper my colleagues will refer to. However, I would remind hon. Members that, before the independence referendum, the Scottish Government produced a 670-page document called “Scotland’s Future”. We knew then, and we know now, that we can make a success of an independent Scotland. Hon. Members should compare and contrast that with page 65 of the so-called White Paper, where this Government are already talking about failure and
“passing legislation as necessary to mitigate the effects of failing to reach a deal.”
That does not instil much confidence in anybody.
Specifically on the amendments and new clauses, new clause 26—the teamwork clause—would, if accepted, mean that article 50 was not triggered until the Team UK approach was agreed by each individual member of the team. Is that not what the Prime Minister said? On that basis, I hope we will have support on both sides of the Committee for the new clause.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Could the hon. Lady clarify whether new clause 26 would effectively give the First Minister of Scotland, if she refused to agree, a veto over the exercise of article 50?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions are always astute. I refer him to the wording of the new clause, which refers specifically to
“a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations”.
Those are the Prime Minister’s words.
New clause 139 would require a substantive vote on this matter to be held in each of the devolved Parliaments prior to article 50 being invoked, further strengthening the democratic mandate for that action. New clause 144 sets out a mechanism to ensure that all devolved Administrations will have direct representation in negotiations on leaving the EU, enabling the negotiating team to have expert input from each constituent part of the UK. Given what we have seen so far, this Government are in need of some expert input. Following that, new clause 145 would set in legislation what we already understand to be possible and deliverable—the negotiation of a differentiated agreement for Scotland, so that it can retain its vital access to the single market by remaining part of the European economic area.
Amendment 46 further strengthens the role of the devolved Parliaments in this process, while amendment 55 would specifically ensure that the people of Northern  Ireland are represented in this process by the newly elected Northern Ireland Executive following the upcoming election. Amendment 60 would ensure formal cross-border discussion of the Government’s proposal to maintain a frictionless land border with Ireland. Lastly, amendment 63 would give Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Welsh Assembly Members the same opportunity to hear the Prime Minister address them on Brexit as she afforded members of the US Congress who attended the Republican party awayday in Philadelphia last month. That is only fair.
We know from last week’s brief White Paper that the Government still believe there should be a special deal for Northern Ireland in our negotiations with the EU. A frictionless border between the UK and Ireland remains their priority. We also know that the UK car industry and the City of London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) alluded, have also been singled out for special attention in the negotiations. It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Government will be willing to pay through the nose to secure a special arrangement where that is in their political or economic interests.

Patrick Grady: I hope my hon. Friend will press all these provisions to a vote, because everyone here loves trooping through the Lobby and exercising their parliamentary sovereignty. However, does she agree that a differentiated deal for Scotland, with Scotland retaining its access to the single market, would benefit the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government are very keen to retain a land border with the EU on the island of Ireland, so why would they not want a land border on the actual island of Great Britain so that England could trade over that border into the single market in Scotland?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: As usual, my hon. Friend makes very salient comments, although I suspect they will fall on deaf ears, and we know what the result of that might well be.
The Scottish Government have been clear that they are willing to make fundamental compromises to ensure that we can agree a UK-wide approach. The Scottish Government’s White Paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, sets out a series of options that could be taken if this House so wished, to protect the precious Union that Members talk about so often—to protect Scotland’s political, social and economic interests in Europe while also remaining part of the United Kingdom. It is now time for this Whitehall Government to start to treat Scotland seriously and with respect. We know that such a differentiated deal is possible. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, said during a BBC interview—well, not much about anything in particular, but we did get this from it—that it is “not impossible” to have a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK. The amendments tabled by the SNP set out a framework for us to work together in the interests of Scotland to deliver this.
We welcome the UK Government’s White Paper, which acknowledges the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee and states that it is in place to
“Seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for… negotiations”.
I refer the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in relation to new clause 26, to those words of the Prime Minister. However, it simply was not acceptable for the Prime Minister to seem to dismiss the Scottish Government’s plan out of hand in her speech at Lancaster House before the JMC had even met to discuss it. The SNP does not believe that “involving” the devolved Administrations ends with the JMC. We want to see real, tangible efforts to develop a proposal acceptable to all of the UK, not just a toothless talking shop. That is why we have tabled an amendment calling for the devolved Administrations to have direct representation in the negotiations as we come to an agreed UK-wide deal.
Tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will vote on the triggering of article 50. The Prime Minister should respect that outcome. We also believe that the Prime Minister—

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister respecting a decision. Will the hon. Lady respect the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that the Prime Minister can decide, and that this is the place where we can decide, for the whole of the United Kingdom?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The hon. Gentleman has already made that intervention and was given an answer. Is it his position that the Scotland Act 2016 has no meaning—no value? Is it his position that notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act he is going to ignore the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved legislatures?

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: No, the hon. Gentleman has had more than enough time.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am not taking any more interventions. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We also believe that the Prime Minister should not trigger article 50 before the Northern Irish Assembly election on 2 March has taken place, and that there must be a meeting of the British-Irish Council to discuss urgently the immediate effect of the UK’s exit from the EU on the Irish border. That is because such a deal is not just possible but absolutely essential to Scotland, in a number of ways. It is essential for Scottish business. The British Chambers of Commerce’s “International Trade Survey” is further evidence of the damaging impact that the threat of a Tory hard Brexit is already having on Scottish and UK businesses. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish, as the hon. Gentleman says, unless he wants to rubbish the results of that survey, and with it the British Chambers of Commerce. I suspect not, hence he is still in a sedentary position. Published today, it reveals that of the 1,500 businesses surveyed, nearly half, or 44%, said that the devaluation of sterling since the EU referendum was having a negative impact on domestic sales margins, while over two thirds, or 68%, expect the fall in the pound to increase their cost base in  the coming year, with more than half of companies—54%—expecting to have to increase the prices of their products as a result.
Such a deal is also essential for Scottish exports.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, but clearly if the pound devalues, that is very good for exporters, including exporters in Scotland. There are two sides to that coin.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his recognition of a passionate speech, although I wish he would pay more attention to the words that I am using while I am delivering it. Is it the Tory Government’s policy to continue with a devalued pound? Is that their vision for the economy of the United Kingdom? That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am not going to give way just now, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
In relation to Scottish exports, new figures published by the think-tank Centre for Cities last weekend show just how vital the EU single market is for Scotland’s four largest cities. Exports to the EU from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow alone total nearly £7 billion. The report also stated that 61% of Aberdeen’s exports go to the EU, which shows the importance of that export market to Scotland. It is also essential to maintain Scotland’s skilled workforce.

Michael Gove: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am not going to give way just now; allow me a few minutes to make some progress.
This morning, Holyrood’s cross-party Europe Committee published its latest report on Brexit, in which it recommended a bespoke Scottish immigration system—almost on cue; I believe, from memory, that that was something propagated by someone on the Government Benches during the campaign. We now know that those who campaigned to leave the EU, like those who campaigned against Scottish independence, were prepared to say anything to win the day and leave the rest of us to pick up the consequences. The findings of the report were based on extensive evidence heard by the Committee, which detailed the demographic crisis that Scotland would face without its EU citizens.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I have been listening very carefully to the points that the hon. Lady made with regard to Northern Ireland. If I heard her right, she indicated that until a new Northern Ireland Executive is established, the Government should not trigger article 50. Northern Ireland is at a difficult crossroads at the present time. If no Executive is ultimately established after 3 March, does she seriously believe that the whole United Kingdom should be held to ransom until that conundrum is resolved?

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I understand. However, I would also ask: why is the whole United Kingdom  being held to ransom by the Prime Minister’s selection of some random date, with no view to the consequences for the whole of the country? We are required to work to that date, but it came off on a whim.
A deal such as I have described is essential for the fishing industry. I mention the fishing industry because for too long it has been ignored by this Government, who have not stood up for it in Europe. The White Paper seems to confirm the worst fears of our fishermen, who now believe that without a specific Scottish deal, their interests will be negotiated away once again, as they have been before.
It is clear that a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK is optimal; it is deliverable; and it is essential to protecting our interests. Now is the time for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to keep her promises to Scotland—as she said, a “UK approach” for all of “Team UK”. Be under no illusions; my colleagues and I were elected by our constituents to stand up for Scotland, and that is exactly what we will do. One way or another, Scotland’s interests will be protected.
The amendments and new clauses that we have tabled would strengthen the UK’s future negotiating position with the EU and provide a framework to serve the best interests of its constituent parts. Our proposals crystallise in legislative specifics the grand platitudes that the Prime Minister and others have spouted about Scotland’s place in the UK and our role in the process.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady referred earlier to the impact of the pound being devalued. Could she tell us which currency an independent Scotland would have? Would it be the pound, the euro or some other currency of her invention, or of the invention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)? [Interruption.]

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: As my colleagues are saying from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in expert opinion anyway. Perhaps he will agree—his mention of another independence referendum speaks to this fact—that the question that was posed to the people of Scotland in 2014 was about a United Kingdom different from the one that exists now. Of course, it is in the gift of the Government and Members from across the House to agree to our proposals. They offer a compromise position, if the right hon. Gentleman does not want another independence referendum. But if we do have one, the arguments will be put forward to the people of Scotland for them to make that decision. The proposals give the Government an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to respecting Scotland and the devolution process.
Quite simply, the UK is either a country that respects all its constituent parts or it is not—the question is as simple as that—and this Government need to decide today one way or another. We are waiting for our answer and, indeed, we are ready to respond, but if the UK Government decide to turn their back on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland will be left under no illusion about how this Government intend to deal with Scottish interests in future negotiations. If the Scottish people can no longer trust the UK Government to act in their interests, it will be for the people of Scotland to decide the best way to rectify this unsatisfactory situation of an increasingly disunited kingdom.

John Redwood: I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I thought he took the Committee patiently through a number of important amendments tabled by Opposition parties, and he explained why some of them are needless because the Government are perfectly well intentioned in relation to the other parts of the United Kingdom and wish to consult very widely, and how some of them would be positively damaging because they are designed as wrecking amendments to impede, delay or even prevent the implementation of the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.
My disappointment about both the Labour and the Scottish National party amendments is that there is absolutely no mention of England in any of them. To have a happy Union—I am sure the Scottish nationalists can grasp this point—it is very important that the process and solution are fair to England as well as to Scotland. I of course understand why the Scottish nationalists, who want to break up the Union, would deliberately leave England out of their considerations of their model for consulting all parts of the United Kingdom. That is deliberate politics, as part of their cause to try to find another battering ram against the Union.
In the case of Labour, however, I find that extraordinarily insouciant and careless. The Labour party is now just an England and Wales party, with only one representative left in Scotland and none in Northern Ireland. Yet it seems to be ignoring the main source of its parliamentary power and authority because it does not say anything in its amendments that would give a special status to England alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and provide proper consultation throughout all parts of the UK. The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman)—she spoke very eloquently, and in a very friendly way—did not mention the word “England”, and she had no suggestion about how England should be properly represented and England’s views properly taken into account in the process that is about to unfold.

Joanna Cherry: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he were minded to bring forward any amendments dealing with his concerns about England, we would give them serious consideration?

John Redwood: I have not done so, because I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and Government Front Benchers that the Government will, of course, do a perfectly good job in consulting and making sure that all parts of the UK are represented, and I am quite sure that Ministers who represent English constituencies will want to guarantee that the view of England is properly considered.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Ian Blackford: rose—

Tommy Sheppard: rose—

John Redwood: If we take the referendum as a national, UK-wide referendum, we will of course take into account the views of everybody because we are following the mandate of the United Kingdom referendum, in which a very large number of English votes are rather important—

Roger Gale: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The conventions are absolutely clear: the right hon. Gentleman will give way as and when he wishes, and hon. Members seeking to intervene should not remain standing.

John Redwood: I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger. I was trying to deal with the previous intervention. As a courtesy to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I thought other Members should listen to my answer to her before I took another intervention. I am now happy to take another intervention.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman has indicted the Labour party and the SNP for not, in this group of amendments, addressing questions in relation to England. Does he recognise that the grouping is headed, “Devolved administrations or legislatures”?

John Redwood: I am well aware of that, and I am well aware that we have different arrangements around the country, but it is still an injustice to England that under the model proposed by Opposition Members, the biggest part of the Union by far would not be consulted on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. I quietly remind them that to have the happy Union that I want, that all Government Members want and that, I think, a lot of Labour Members want, when we change the arrangements and have special arrangements for some parts, we have to make sure that they are fair to England as well.

Ian Blackford: We must reflect on what we were told in 2014, and that is that we were asked to lead the Union. If we are to have respect for this place, which we do, this House has to respect that the people of Scotland have given a particular judgment. This is about the House reaching a compromise not with us as SNP MPs, but with the people of Scotland. I cannot see why the Government and Conservative Back Benchers see that as so difficult. Quite frankly, if they cannot reach that accommodation with the people of Scotland, the people of Scotland will make their own conclusion.

John Redwood: Some of the SNP Members do protest too much. I seem to remember that they actively fought two referendums in recent years and managed to lose both of them. For my part, I am very happy with the result of both referendums; I managed to find myself on the winning side in both cases. I believe in respecting the views of the Scottish people, who decided that they wished to remain part of the Union of the United Kingdom, and in respecting the views of voters in the United Kingdom, who said they did not wish to remain part of the European Union. That is a very clear set of messages.
This Union Parliament, in the interests of the special Scottish considerations, said that only Scottish voters would decide whether Scotland stayed in the Union or not. Although many of us had strong views and were pleased that they decided to stay, we deliberately decided that it was appropriate to let Scotland decide, because in a democracy, a country cannot be in a union that does not volunteer freely to belong to that union. The Scottish nationalists, by the same logic, must see that  people like myself—the 52%—have exactly the same view on the European Union that they have on the Union of the United Kingdom. There has to be voluntary consent. When the point is reached where the majority of a country no longer wishes to belong to the European Union, it has to leave.
I would have been the first to have said, had the Scottish nationalists won the Scottish referendum, that I wanted the United Kingdom to make all due speed with a sensible solution so that Scotland could have her wishes. I think I would have wanted rather more independence for Scotland than the Scottish nationalists, because I think that if a country is going to be a properly independent—

Patrick Grady: On a point of order, Sir Roger. I keep hearing the right hon. Gentleman talking about the “Scottish nationalist party”. I do not know what party that is, but the Members on these Benches belong to the Scottish National party.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

John Redwood: I am delighted that another advert has been given for the Scottish National party. We understand the point that its Members are making: they are not happy with the result of either referendum. However, in a democracy, when we have trusted the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to leave our Union and we have trusted United Kingdom voters to decide whether they wish to leave the European Union, it is my view and the view of practically all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and many Labour MPs, that we need to respect both results.

Paul Flynn: The memory of the right hon. Gentleman serving as the governor-general of Wales is treasured because of his memorable attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem, but he did that job without the legitimacy of a single Welsh vote. Does he not recall that this House can now act as an English Parliament under the EVEL rules? However, that is a path to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

John Redwood: Yes, the United Kingdom, through this Parliament, has decided that there will be differential arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom. To Scotland we have given a Parliament; to Wales and Northern Ireland we have given an Assembly; and to England we have given absolutely nothing. That, so far, is our constitutional settlement. We have accepted exactly what the SNP spokeswoman was seeking: special treatment for Scotland through a more powerful Parliament.
One of the disappointments about this debate on devolution is that the myriad amendments do not, as I understand them, deliver more devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, yet that opportunity will be there for the taking as we proceed with the process of leaving the European Union.
I despair at the pessimism of so many people about this very exciting process of recreating an independent, democratic country. The SNP should understand that an area such as agriculture, which the hon. Member for  Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wrongly told us was fully devolved —of course, it is not fully devolved but almost completely centralised in Brussels, which makes all the crucial decisions and budgetary dispositions, which we then have to execute—

Chris Bryant: It is now.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman says it is now, but we are still in the EU, and that is the position we are about to change. This gives us a huge opportunity to devolve that power from Brussels. Some of it might go to the Union Parliament, some to the Welsh Assembly and some to the Scottish Parliament. That is to be decided, but would it not be a good idea if the SNP joined in positively the discussion about the appropriate areas to take those powers?

Hugo Swire: Does my right hon. Friend believe, like me, that the SNP will join in the discussion if, on exiting the EU, more money becomes available to spend in the UK? If more is spent in England, it will want a dividend for Scotland as well, through Barnett.

John Redwood: I suspect that that is exactly right. I look forward to the day when the SNP accepts the verdict of the Union and the wisdom of the majority of Union voters, and sees that there is more power in it for devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—and potentially more money, once we no longer have to send the net contributions—and that we have a great opportunity to develop the devolved version of Scotland that the Scottish people voted for, if not always the one that the SNP would like.

Ian Blackford: Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore join me and my colleagues in demanding that powers that might come back to this Parliament, in respect of agriculture and fisheries, be handed over to Scotland and that we get the money that should be coming to us? As part of that process, why does the UK Government not start by handing over the convergence uplift money from the EU that is supposed to come to Scottish farmers and crofters but which the UK has kept its filthy hands on?

John Redwood: It is not my job as an English MP to make that case, but I am glad that at last the SNP is making the case for an opportunity that would present, were it to allow us to get on with Brexit and create exactly that opportunity of more money for Scottish farmers.

Anne Main: Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement that the SNP is not welcoming back control over things such as fishing, or at least the possibility of getting it, but would prefer to leave it in Brussels? It would prefer to leave fisheries policy in Brussels, rather than grabbing the opportunity coming our way to sort out our own fishing resources.

John Redwood: Fishing is a prime example of a deeply damaging policy pursued over 45 years during our term in the EU. It has done a lot of damage to the Scottish industry, as well as to the English industry. Is there not a case for common cause here, to work on a Union-wide fishing policy, with appropriate devolution,  so that we might all be better off and protect our fisheries better, ensure that more of the fish taken is landed and sold, ensure proper conservation, ensure a bigger Scottish, English and British component in the catch taken, and ensure proper and sensible national limits on our waters, which we have not been allowed to have in the EU.

Alex Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman will remember the famous civil service memo when Britain was negotiating entry into the Common Market that said that in the light of Britain’s wider European interests, “they”—the Scottish fishermen—were “expendable”. If that was the attitude on the way in, why will it not be the attitude of the British Government on the way out?

John Redwood: Because the British people have advised the British Government to be much more sensible on the way out than they were on the way in. As someone who opposed the way in and voted against it as a young man at the time, I am certainly not to blame for the enormous damage visited on the Scottish industry, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party have acquiesced in over many years by always saying that we should stay in the EU, which delivered that very bad policy for Scottish fisherman. I found, going around the country and making the case for our fishing industry, that this was an extremely potent issue, inland as well as in our coastal ports. It was a great sadness to me that so many stalwart defenders of the EU were prepared to sacrifice the Scottish and the British fishing industry.

Michael Gove: I speak as the son and grandson of fish merchants, and I should point out that it was the Scottish nationalist party—[Interruption]—that wanted to keep us in the EU and to maintain the common fisheries policy, which has destroyed jobs and industries, and which is why 54% of people in the parliamentary constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave. [Interruption.]

John Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful point and for making the Committee even noisier than I was able to make it by my modest remarks.
My final point—I am conscious of the time and I have taken a lot of interventions—is that a big confusion about single markets underlies the SNP amendments. We have this strange contradiction in their logic whereby staying in the single market of the European Union is crucial to the health of the Scottish economy, whereas leaving the single market with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be fine as part of the process of independence. Far more of Scotland’s business, of course, is done with the single market of the United Kingdom than is done with the single market of the EU. Some SNP Members try to justify it by saying, “Well, of course we would be allowed to stay fully in the single market with the rest of the UK, so we would want to do exactly the same thing with the EU.” That would be a matter for discussion and negotiation, if there were to be a second referendum and if SNP Members were ever to get to the point where they could win one—two things that look extremely unlikely today.
SNP Members need to look very carefully at their contradictory position. My view in both cases is that what matters is access to the market, not membership of  the market, because membership comes with budget contributions, acceptance of law making, acceptance of court powers and all the rest of it, which is true of our single market in the UK just as it is of the single market as designed in the EU. Successful independent trading countries just need very good access to markets, which is what can be got under most favoured nation rules under the WTO and probably even better access through the negotiation of a special free trade agreement. It should be much easier to negotiate a free trade agreement where there is already one de facto, because it is not necessary to remove tariffs that are difficult to remove. They have already been removed; we are just trying to protect them.
I thus urge the Scottish nationalists to think again about this issue and to understand that we are all on the same side: we want maximum access for Scottish whisky as well as for English beef or whatever the product. There is every possibility that we can achieve a good deal, and we are much more likely to achieve it without the amendments tabled by SNP Members, and with a concerted view from this place that we are going to get on with implementing the wishes of the United Kingdom voters. Their message to us is, “Just do it.” That should be the message from this week’s debate in this Chamber.

Conor McGinn: I rise to speak to new clause 109, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall also speak to amendment 86 and new clause 150, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I will be brief, because I want to allow Members from Scotland, Wales and, of course, Northern Ireland to speak on these matters.
Before I come on to my substantive point about my new clause, I want to say that as a Member of Parliament representing an English constituency, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) gets a chance to speak to her new clause 168. In Merseyside and Greater Manchester, directly elected Mayors will be in place by the end of this May. My constituents in St Helens North, people in Greater Manchester, in the Liverpool city region and indeed people across the north-west of England will expect their views and those of their elected representatives to be taken into account as part of this process.
The Good Friday agreement is, for me, at the heart of progress made in Northern Ireland and with respect to relations between Britain and Ireland. The progress made over the last number of decades has been forged by and through our common membership of the European Union. In speaking to my new clause, I am of course cognisant of the fact that this debate is taking place in the context of the implications of the referendum held last May. I voted in this Parliament to hold a referendum; I took part in that campaign; and I lost. Those who argued for a remain vote lost. I respect that fact, and I voted accordingly last week. I want to be constructive about working with the Government to get the best possible Brexit that we can for my constituents and for the United Kingdom.
However, I am also cognisant of the need for respect to be shown to a different referendum, the one that took place in Northern Ireland in 1998 on support for the  Good Friday agreement. On the same day, there was another referendum which resulted in Ireland’s withdrawal of its territorial claim over Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party. So the people of Northern Ireland, through a referendum, endorsed the Good Friday agreement. Subsequent agreements have been made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, supported by the efforts of my hon. Friends in all the Northern Ireland parties—and I call them my hon. Friends deliberately.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question about new clause 109? He is asking Her Majesty’s Government to commit themselves to the principles that are enshrined in the various agreements, but given that he accepts that they have committed themselves to all those principles—as, indeed, have Her Majesty’s Opposition—why is the new clause necessary?

Conor McGinn: I think it important to bear in mind the uncertainty that has been caused by the vote to leave the European Union, and the fact that the drafting and signing of the Good Friday agreement, and all the architecture surrounding it, were in the context of both the United Kingdom and Ireland being members of the European Union. Let me also say gently to my hon. Friend that people in Northern Ireland, like people in Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union. The vote that I cast in the House on article 50 was based on the vote in the United Kingdom as a whole, but I think that that is worth bearing in mind as well.
I hope that the Government will commit themselves to ensuring that some of the provisions of the Good Friday agreement will remain in place when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, and to upholding them in both letter and spirit. The first, which is the most practical and obvious, is the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland. Trade and tourism have increased. People in the United Kingdom, in Ireland and, indeed, in the world as a whole do not lead their lives, or inhabit their communities, on the basis of boundaries. I see very little difference between crossing the boundary between my local authority in St Helens and the local authority in Knowsley and crossing the border between Derry and Letterkenny, or between Newry and Dundalk.
My second point concerns citizenship rights, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland, although my new clause 108, which was included in the previous group, refers to the status, rights and privileges of the Irish community in Great Britain. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I would welcome an assurance from the Government. Migration from Ireland was taking place before we simultaneously joined the European Union. Although Irish citizens will still be EU citizens after the UK leaves the EU, it would be good to know that the rights, status and entitlements that they have enjoyed through legislation and through custom and practice over the last century—and for many centuries—will be maintained.
This is also about the rights of people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British, or to choose to be both. I choose to exercise both those  rights; some people choose to exercise, exclusively, one of them; but I think it important for those who wish to be Irish citizens, and will be EU citizens, who reside in and were born in Northern Ireland to be very much in the Government’s thoughts as they negotiate our withdrawal.
The third point is about the preservation of institutions relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday agreement, namely the North South Ministerial Council and the north-south bodies. The north-south bodies deal with, for instance, food safety, trade and business, inland waterways, the Ulster Scots and the Irish language. One would imagine that when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the Special EU Programmes Body, which was set up to distribute European Union funds, will cease to exist. It was set up under strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which was passed by a referendum, and which is enshrined in legislation passed by the House of Commons.
In the context of strand 3, I think it crucially important for east-west relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue. There is a new dynamic following devolution and the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who play a role in the British-Irish Council and in forums such as the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It is absolutely critical that this engagement continues. Taking on board the point of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), these engagements are taking place in the context of our joint European union, which has made all of this just so much easier. That is an indisputable fact.
One area that concerns me greatly in terms of the UK leaving the EU is the Good Friday agreement’s provisions on human rights and equality, given the Government mood music around the European convention on human rights. That is of course separate from and outside membership of the EU, but it is worrying that the Government have intimated that they would seek to roll back or reverse some of the commitments given on human rights in terms of both Northern Ireland in relation to this new clause and people across the UK as a whole.

Rosie Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very appropriate if the Minister tonight confirmed that the Government are not going to leave the European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe, because there are strong feelings on both sides of the House about that and about leaving our place in the world somewhat exposed? It is important that the Minister gives an undertaking on that tonight.

Conor McGinn: I agree entirely and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the valuable and important work she does in representing this place on the Council of Europe; we are very lucky to have her in that position.
On the principle of consent, having previously alluded to the Irish Government withdrawing their territorial claim, there is now no dispute—the Good Friday agreement makes this clear—by any parties in the Northern Ireland Executive or any parties in this House about the fact that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as the majority of people there decide otherwise. That is what is enshrined in the  principle of consent, but it is for people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole to exercise that. My slight concern is that Northern Ireland leaving the European Union is a constitutional change that has been done without the consent of people in Northern Ireland, because they voted to remain. That again unsettles what has been a very delicate political balance that both Labour and Conservative Governments have sought to protect.
The new clause moved by the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) goes to the heart of this as well. There is no provision for a part of a country that leaves the EU to re-join the EU. We must be explicitly clear on that, in respecting the principle of consent. If the wishes of people in Northern Ireland change and they wish to join a united Ireland, provision should be made for them to immediately become members of the EU, having expressed their wish to join the rest of the island of Ireland in a union.
Finally, it is very important to maintain the status of the Irish language. It is a full EU recognised language, and particular reference is made to it in the Good Friday agreement in terms of its being a regional and minority language.
I have tried to be constructive in my amendment, and I hope that what I have said tonight is constructive. I have huge respect for hon. and right hon. Friends from Northern Ireland. I understand that on this we will have different views, but in doing so I seek to protect the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, which I believe has given me and many others like me opportunities that we would not otherwise have had.

Jonathan Edwards: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his considered and well-made speech; it was a pleasure to listen to it. I know that time is of the essence and I will therefore speak briefly to Plaid Cymru’s amendments in this group; they are new clauses 158, 159, 160 and 162 and amendment 90. With your permission, Sir Roger, we hope to press new clause 158 to a vote.
The Bill as it stands will be the biggest job-killing Act in Welsh economic history. It may be short, but it is loaded—loaded with a Brexit that pays no regard to the promises made during the vote leave campaign. This is not a Bill that ratifies the referendum result; it is a Bill that endorses the UK Government’s Brexit plan. We do not accept that the Prime Minister’s extreme Brexit is what drove people to vote leave. They were swayed by a torrent of false promises, and new clause 158 is designed to hold the Brexiteers’ feet to the fire. It would allow for proper scrutiny of the Government’s plans to uphold their pledge of continued levels of funding for Wales before triggering article 50.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman represents a rural constituency, as do I. Would he like to remind the House of the promises that were made to our rural communities, especially bearing in mind the fact that 90% of our exports go to the single market?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I shall make later in my speech. We were promised absolutely no detriment; that pledge was made to the people of Wales.

Stephen Doughty: I wholeheartedly support new clause 158. It is a shame that my new clause 157 was not selected; it had a similar intent. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, despite repeated questions to the Government, they have refused to guarantee that Wales will not be left a penny worse off as a result of leaving the European Union?

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for his new clause, which we would have been delighted to support. That is exactly the point that I shall be making during my contribution on new clause 158.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have failed to guarantee EU funding post-2020, which is what was promised in the referendum?

Jonathan Edwards: That is a pertinent point, and I am happy that colleagues will support us in the Lobby if we get the opportunity to vote on my new clause later.
The UK Government’s White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, was a complete whitewash in relation to those pledges. Unsurprisingly, it made no commitment to uphold the funding pledges, which were no doubt very persuasive in Wales during the referendum. Let us remember that the estimated net benefit—I emphasise “net benefit”—to Wales from the EU in 2014 was around £245 million, or £79 per head. We will not accept a penny less from the UK Government, because that was the specific pledge by the leave campaign in our country. Not one single penny less.
Just over a week before the vote, amid huge publicity, the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said that
“funding for each and every part of the UK, including Wales, would be safe if we vote to leave.”
That statement was made following an open letter written by Tory Front Benchers, some of whom have now been promoted to the Cabinet and hold Brexit portfolios. They made the same promise.

Albert Owen: I, too, will be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 158 in the Lobby this evening if a vote is called. I would also have supported new clause 157. He is making an important point. Does he agree that the Joint Ministerial Committee would be a vehicle for the Welsh First Minister, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, to make that case and hold the Government to account?

Jonathan Edwards: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I will be supporting the new clause tabled by the Labour Front Bench if it is pushed to a vote. He is completely right. At the moment, UK Government Ministers might as well go into those Joint Ministerial Committee meetings with their iPods on and their headphones in. They are not going to listen to a word that the Welsh or Scottish Governments say, or  to the representatives from Northern Ireland. There is no leverage to what is discussed in those JMC meetings. We need to firm up those processes.
The extreme Brexit favoured by the UK Government takes no account of the geographical economic divergence that exists within the British state. The Welsh economy is heavily driven by exports, and two thirds of our goods go to Europe. To willingly block those vital economic arteries would be an act of calamitous self-harm, given that 200,000 jobs in Wales are sustained by our trade with Europe. As someone whose job it is to represent the interests of my constituents and compatriots, I have a responsibility to do all I can to mitigate this Bill’s intentions.
That brings me to new clause 159, which would require the Government to explore a differentiated deal for Wales within the European economic area. The unprecedented task that lies ahead for the UK will inevitably require flexibility and, indeed, imagination. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that if the UK Government give us the assurance that Wales will keep its membership of the single market and the customs union, we will support the Bill. The Government have already conceded, rightly, that flexibility will be required to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The joint Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper makes the case for the continuation of full participation—that is, membership—for Wales in the single market and the customs union.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extraordinary attitude taken by the Government and the Prime Minister today on the status of the United Kingdom is entirely false? The United Kingdom does not exist as far as agriculture is concerned. The powers are exercised by the Welsh Government and the EU. If this goes through, it will be an attempt by the Government to take back powers that have already been devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is correct, as always, and I will come to that point later in my speech when I talk about shared competence and some of the constitutional reforms that will have to be made following Brexit.
In a similar manner, concessions have reportedly been made in certain sectors of the economy. We have already heard about Nissan in Sunderland and, as we would expect, the City of London. New clause 159 calls on the Government to show Wales a similar level of consideration by committing to consult on a territorial exemption when the Prime Minister drags the UK out of the single market.

Madeleine Moon: Last week, I asked about guarantees about tariffs, specifically that there be no tariffs on Ford engines built in my constituency and exported out of Wales. I was told that there was no guarantee but that there was a commitment. Is a commitment good enough for Wales? Is it good enough for the United Kingdom given that we are now £1.8 trillion in debt—a national debt that is growing by more than £5,000 a second?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Lady is right to mention the fears about Ford because it is a major employer. I pay tribute to her for having the courage of her convictions when she voted against the Labour Whip last week.
Vote Leave campaigned on a platform of sovereignty, claiming that it wanted decisions made as closely to the people as possible. New clause 160 would allow precisely that by requiring the National Assembly for Wales to endorse any final agreement on the terms of exiting the European Union, thereby ensuring that Wales is fully involved in the process and that its needs are met. The Supreme Court ruling, which concluded that the Sewel convention holds no legal weight, confirms our long-held suspicion that devolution, and the principles it champions, is built on sand. Indeed, the UK Government went out of their way in their submission to the court to emphasise the supremacy of this Westminster Parliament over the devolved Parliaments. Within the UK, it seems as though some Parliaments are more equal than others. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruling is why new clause 160 is necessary. If the British state is a partnership of equals, this is an opportunity for the UK Government to prove it.
The Prime Minister obviously recognises her political duty to consult with the devolved Administrations—if only to save her own reputation. After all, she does not want to go down in history for breaking up two unions. Without the leverage of a vote on the final terms, Wales’ input holds no weight. The Brexiteers are ploughing ahead with the hardest of brutal Brexits. The Prime Minister’s “plan” speech on 17 January came before Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government had an opportunity to submit their White Paper for consideration.
New clause 162 and amendment 90 deal with repatriated powers and the constitutional future of the British state. On the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, powers will be repatriated to the UK, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and a determination will need to be made about powers in devolved areas. At the moment, there is little experience within the British state of shared competence. Serious thought and consideration must be given to the future of the UK’s constitutional structures. If not, we are in danger of constitutional turmoil.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that the problem with some speeches from Government Members is that they simply do not get that this is not a unity constitutional state anymore? We have separate Administrations, for example. How will the UK’s internal single market work? Have the Government given any thought to such matters? I do not think they have. Does he agree?

Jonathan Edwards: I completely agree. That is why new clause 162 is important in that wider debate. Government Members are riding roughshod over the views of Members of Parliament representing Wales and Scotland and setting a dangerous precedent.

Charlie Elphicke: In all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, he skates over the fact that it was a referendum of the United Kingdom. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. What is more, the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union.  He ought to respect the people of Wales, who made that decision as much as did the people of the United Kingdom.

Jonathan Edwards: I am not questioning the referendum result. I am trying to work out what happens next in the interests of all the people I represent in Carmarthenshire and the people of my country, Wales.
Powers repatriated that straddle both devolved and reserved subject areas must be dealt with effectively, and the National Assembly must retain its autonomy. By “taking back control” the Prime Minister must not mean rolling back on devolution. New clause 162 would provide an avenue for that by committing the UK Government to conduct a review of the UK’s constitution.

Tommy Sheppard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the likely rejection of his amendment by Government Members, along with their put-down of every attempt to get some meaningful consultation with Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, belies a deep arrogance? They actually think that this process means that British Ministers can override Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters that pertain to those countries.

Jonathan Edwards: I agree exactly with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go further. My great fear is that Brexit will be used by the UK Government and by the Conservative party to derail and undermine devolution in its entirety.
In a similar manner to new clause 162, amendment 90 seeks clarity on laws repatriated from the EU.

Wayne David: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that what we need more than anything else at this moment is mutual respect of the devolution settlements and that we should do our best to achieve consensus wherever possible?

Jonathan Edwards: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendments tabled by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Labour endeavour to achieve that, and it is a source of great regret tonight that they have been taken so badly by Government Members.
I do not usually make a habit of quoting the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, but in this instance he has made another fitting statement, and I will hold his party to account on it. He said in an LBC interview last month:
“No, this won’t be the last Wales Bill…. Brexit will require devolution changes to realign those responsibilities.”
There we have it. A devolution settlement meant to last a generation, and which received Royal Assent only last week, is already redundant.
I finish by reiterating that on 23 June nobody voted to lose their job or to become poorer. My colleagues and I will be doing everything possible to avoid that and to ensure that the interests of the people of Wales are protected.

Owen Paterson: I have listened to the debate with interest, but I had not intended to contribute, so I will be brief because other Members want to speak.
I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), the ex-leader of the SNP, that 17.4 million people voted to leave. The majority of the amendments that we are faced with this evening are wholly vexatious and are intended to frustrate the will of the people. What aspect of these three simple English words do the SNP not understand: “You lost twice”?

Alex Salmond: My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) just predicted exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was about to say, because apparently he said it a day or so ago. Does he remember the result of the general election in Scotland? Fifty-six out of 59 seats. Does he remember the result of the Scottish election? Nicola Sturgeon was resoundingly returned as First Minister of Scotland.

Owen Paterson: I like having a helpful intervention, which gives me another chance to remind the Committee that 17.4 million people across the UK voted for this result. The one thing that would be bad this evening is if we were to accept any of these amendments, because that would lead to uncertainty. What we need is clarity. After the vote last week, businesses, investors and those in jobs across the land need clarity and certainty, so I suggest that the SNP gets back to the day job. Look at the primary schools where literacy rates are declining. Look at the universities where the number of people from less well-off backgrounds is declining. Look at the great hospitals that are not performing. Look at the mess the SNP made of its police reforms. Go back and work on the day job.
Another narrative is creeping into this evening’s debates. It concerns Northern Ireland and is rather more serious than the pantomime of the SNP. I refer to some comments have been made about the potential threat to the peace process, and I wish to put another point of view. The people who should be given the most credit are the incredibly brave professional people in our security forces who, under the most extraordinary provocation and in difficult circumstances, held the line and held the peace, which allowed the peace process to take place. I also pay tribute to all those in all parties in Northern Ireland who worked on the peace process; to the two leading parties in the UK, the Conservative party and the Labour party, which took a bipartisan approach; to the two main parties in the Dáil, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil; and to the two main parties in Washington, the Democrats and the Republicans. That extraordinary unity of purpose, over many years, has brought Northern Ireland to the better place it is in.
When I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I went to Northern Ireland every week for three years, and when I was Secretary of State I went every week for two years. In five years, I do not recall having a single meeting with any EU official; I do not recall any visit to Brussels on any issue. Obviously, the two years I spent at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were a complete contrast, as about 90% of what DEFRA does is implement EU law. So I wish to correct the idea about what would happen should the UK bring back powers and the money to this place. Obviously, there were significant EU funds, so we will have shedloads of money coming back, which we will continue to spend.
I wish to put on the record again the fact that in five years neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), my stalwart Minister of State, can remember a single meeting with an EU official. That just puts into perspective the importance of the EU. I recall having the German ambassador to a successful dinner at Hillsborough where we talked about investors, but I honestly cannot recall a meeting with the EU. I did come in after the settlement had gone through and perhaps Labour Members who were involved remember interventions, but for me the key players in this were the UK security forces, the two main parties here, the two main parties in Dublin and the two main parties in Washington.

Ian Murray: The right hon. Gentleman used the term “shedloads”. Will he tell the House how much “shedloads” is? Is it more or less than the £350 million for the NHS that was plastered on that now infamous bus?

Owen Paterson: The latest figure I saw was about £10 billion, so significant funds from the EU pass through the UK Government and those funds could be either spent at the same level or increased should we wish to do so. I therefore do not see that the money side will destabilise the peace process. We have heard talk that the process is unhelpful for Northern Ireland, but it has moved on to a completely different position. The main thing to concentrate on in Northern Ireland is getting the economy moving, and that is where the real efforts should be. It is also worth thinking about the position of the Republic—

Margaret Ritchie: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand or accept that direct negotiations would have taken place between EU officials, and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministers therein, rather than the Secretary of State or his deputy, because those EU matters were devolved matters?

Owen Paterson: Yes, I am perfectly happy to accept that. That was in the negotiation before I arrived. I worked closely with the former Member for St Helens South when he was Secretary of State and I was his shadow. As shadow, I spent a lot of time going to Dublin, talking to both parties, and to Washington, and that continued when I became Secretary of State. The point I am making is that in the time I have been around, the EU has not played a key negotiating role. Money has been going in that we can easily replicate and the peace process has moved on. I want to correct the narrative that the EU played a key role in the whole process.
It is interesting that the Republic of Ireland is now moving on as well. I had interesting letter from Anthony Coughlan, the associate professor emeritus in social policy at Trinity College, Dublin. He has produced an interesting paper on why Brexit should be accompanied by Irexit—Ireland exit. To give the House a feel for it, the third paragraph of his letter says:
“Now that the Republic has become a net contributor to the EU Budget, and the fact that it will be doing nearly two-thirds of its foreign trade with English speaking countries outside the EU when the UK leaves, as well as for the other reasons set out in the report, it is clearly in its best interests that it should leave the EU at or around the same time as the UK does.”
That shows that there are forward-thinking people in Dublin, and brings attention to the extraordinarily close relations we currently have with Dublin, which will continue.
We have clear indications in the White Paper about the common travel area. There will be continued close relations and close movement, which is to the advantage of all citizens in Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Danny Kinahan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of the changes and things that must happen in future will have to come from the EU? We need article 50 to go through quickly so we can get on with it, but we need the EU to start looking after Ireland and fighting their corner so that we can all work together to find the best solution.

Owen Paterson: I am not sure that the words “looking after Ireland” will be that welcome in a proud independent state, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has taken the point I made: uncertainty is not good for Northern Ireland, and I shall happily vote against all the amendments, because they would lead to uncertainty. If EU funds have been provided, we can pick them up. The key players are the two main parties in this House, the two main parties in the Dáil, and the two main parties in Washington. Those are the real guarantors of the peace process. With that, I look forward to voting against the amendments.

Mark Durkan: The real guarantors of the peace process were the people of Ireland when they voted by referendum in May 1998 to choose and underpin the agreement. Neither of the two main parties in this House had a vote in that referendum, and nor did the two parties in Washington, so let us be clear on who the real guarantors are. In the context of a debate in which we are told we have to go by the imperative of the referendum that took place on 23 June last year, let people recognise that there is still an imperative that goes back to the joint referendum, that articulated act of self-determination by the Irish people, who chose to underpin and agree to the Good Friday agreement.
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) says he does not want uncertainty, but as far as the Good Friday agreement is concerned, the uncertainty is being created by Brexit. Neither he nor anyone else in this House should be surprised when they start to hear that the negotiations that take place after the Assembly elections will not just deal with the questions of scandal, the lack of accountability and transparency, and the smugness and arrogance displayed by the parties in government, but will go to the core of the implications for the agreement as a result of Brexit.
The fact is that although the Good Friday agreement has been wrongly dismissed by others, the EU is mentioned in it. It is there in strands 1 and 2—one of the most expansive references is in relation to the competence of the North South Ministerial Council; it is there in strand 3; and, of course, it is there in the key preamble of the agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland, which refers to their common membership of the EU. As John Hume always predicted, that provided both the model and the context for our peace process.
It is no accident that when John Hume, who drove so much of the principles and method into the Good Friday agreement, was awarded the Nobel peace prize—well, just look at that speech and how many references there were to the signal role of Europe and the special contribution it had made and would make, and to the role that the experience of common membership of the EU would play. That is why he said:
“I want to see Ireland—North and South—the wounds of violence healed, play its rightful role in a Europe that will, for all Irish people, be a shared bond of patriotism and new endeavour.”
When he enunciated those words in 1998, he was not talking about a new concept. We can look across the Chamber and see the plaque commemorating Tom Kettle, a former Member of this House who gave his life in the first world war. Before that war, he said that his programme for Ireland consisted in equal parts of home rule and the 10 commandments. He said:
“My only counsel to Ireland is, that to become deeply Irish, she must become European.”
Before he gave his life in the war, he said:
“Used with the wisdom that is sewn in tears and blood, this tragedy of Europe may be and must be the prologue to the two reconciliations of which all statesmen have dreamed, the reconciliation of Protestant Ulster with Ireland, and the reconciliation of Ireland with Great Britain.”
That reconciliation was best achieved and best expressed when we had the Good Friday agreement, which was so overwhelmingly endorsed in this House and in the referendum of the Irish people, north and south of the border. We know that some people did not endorse it, and that some people have held back their endorsement and refused to recognise that referendum result. Some of them are the same people who are telling us now that we have to abide by the referendum result in respect of Brexit and that we have to ignore the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of remaining in the EU. It is the same as when they said that we had to ignore the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland in respect of the Good Friday agreement.
No one should be under any misapprehension that there are implications for the Good Friday agreement. When we hear this lip service that we get from the Government, the rest of us are meant to lip synch along with it and talk about frictionless borders and the common travel area. All those things about the border experience and the common travel area predate the agreement itself, so if we address those issues and those concerns, we must understand that the terms in which they are addressed are not reliable and that they are not relevant to protecting some of the aspects of the agreement itself, which is why the amendments in this group that we have tabled are so important.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has already referred to new clause 150, which appears on page 75 of the Order Paper. We have also tabled a key amendment, amendment 86, to which the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) referred when he addressed new clause 109. There are also amendments 88 and 92, which deal with questions around the competence of the devolved Assembly, and the need for consent in respect of any changes to the competence of that Assembly or of devolved Ministers. Those amendments are not about the question of the Assembly giving consent to the triggering of article 50, so it is not about the same question that went to the  Supreme Court—but it is about issues and principles that were addressed and are expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court that too many people have sought to ignore.
As a supposed co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government are meant to have a duty to protect and develop that agreement. Indeed, various Ministers have told us that they have no intention of allowing Brexit to undermine the agreement. If that is so, there should be no difficulty in having that commitment in the Bill. Politically, we all have to conclude from the Supreme Court judgment that no matter what principles have been agreed or established, none of us can have recourse to their legal adherence without their explicit inclusion in legislation and/or a treaty. We therefore have a duty to be vigilant against any legislative terms that could be used to relegate the crucial importance of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and/or the Belfast agreement more widely.
Those sponsoring and supporting this Bill do so arguing the need to respect the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. We make no apologies for highlighting the primacy that has to be accorded to the overwhelming endorsement in our referendum, when, on 22 May 1998, nearly 72% of people in Northern Ireland and 96% in the south of Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday agreement.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is talking about some extraordinarily challenging and difficult issues, which could have some very serious implications in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is our duty—all of us who want to see Northern Ireland prosper and go forward—to recognise the fact that the UK is exiting the EU and that we have to make the most of it. Will he commit to the House that he will not make divisions over Brexit a part of the SDLP campaign during the Northern Ireland elections?

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman has some neck to ask the Social Democratic and Labour party not to make divisions over Brexit an issue in the election. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, which were clearly expressed in the referendum last year, are being ignored. Are we now also to tell the people, “Ignore your own wishes”? The right hon. Gentleman obviously expects a party like the SDLP, which honourably fought a campaign to remain, to say, “Ignore your wishes. Set them aside. You have to be slaves to the impulses of a vote in England in response to some crazy argument.”
Clause 1(2) denies any regard whatever to protecting the constitutional, institutional or rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement or their due reflection in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is why we tabled amendment 86. Clause 1(2) seeks to ensure that that Bill is not restricted by any other legislation whatever. Amendment 86 would create an exception for the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it would uphold the collateral principles in the other part of the Good Friday agreement, which is between the Governments of the UK and Ireland, and is not fully reflected in the 1998 Act. The amendment would also exempt section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949 from the override power in the Bill or its  outworkings. I admit that the amendment would act as a boundary to the powers provided to the Prime Minister by clause 1(1) and would galvanise the protection for the agreement but, given that the Prime Minister is trying to tell us that she would observe those boundaries, why should she fear that being on the face of the Bill?
New clause 150 draws on key language from the Good Friday agreement, as I made clear to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. It is intended to ensure that any future UK-EU treaty—we are told that the Government want to negotiate a new UK-EU treaty—will make explicit reference to upholding the fundamental constitutional precept of the Good Friday agreement, which is the principle of consent that affords a democratic route to a united Ireland if that ever becomes the wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland. In the case of any such future referendum, no uncertainty whatever must hang over Northern Ireland’s direct admission to the EU as a consequence of a vote for a united Ireland. Nor, indeed, must there be any uncertainty over Ireland’s terms of membership of the European Union.
Such uncertainty was deployed during the Scottish independence referendum, when people said, “Don’t make assumptions about Scotland having an automatic place in the EU or that it will be easy. Article 49 will make it very difficult.” The difference for Northern Ireland is that it does not have the choice of becoming a new state. Under the Good Friday agreement, its only choice is membership of the United Kingdom or membership of a united Ireland. That agreement was made at a time when both countries had common membership of the EU. Any future referendum will not take place in that situation. Lots of people can place question marks over whether Northern Ireland would have straightforward entry to the EU in that context. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, that could constitute an external impediment to the exercise of that choice or even to the choice of having a referendum.
The Taoiseach identified this issue at the MacGill Summer School last year. It will be an issue for the Irish Government, as one of the 27 member states, when they negotiate their side of the treaty. It would be an odd position for the Irish Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement to want this to be reflected in a new UK-EU treaty. This is not just an issue for the British Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement; it should be something that they are equally and comfortably committed to.
Let us remember that the key precept of the principle of consent and the democratic choice for a united Ireland, as reflected in a referendum in 1998, was the key point that turned it for those people who had locked themselves on to the nonsense idea that they supported violence sourced from a mandate from the 1918 election. That was the key for quite a number of people to say, “Physical force has no more place in the course of Irish politics.” Physical force is now parked because the Irish people as a whole have, in this generation, by articulated self-determination, upheld this agreement, and that gives them the right, by further articulated self-determination, to achieve unity in the future. Anything that diminishes or qualifies or damages that key precept will damage the agreement. People need to know the difference between a stud wall and a supporting wall: just knocking something through because it is convenient and gives a bit more space might be grand and might do, but if at  some future point, when other pressures arise, things start coming down around us, people should not complain. We have to be diligent and vigilant on these matters.
I would also point out that the German precedent, which some people have told us would apply automatically, would not apply. That was under a different treaty. We should also remember that the German precedent partly relied on the fact that the West German constitution, recognised by the then EC treaty, included a territorial claim of jurisdiction over all of Germany—that the basic law applied. That is not the case now in respect of Ireland, because articles 2 and 3 were changed, rightly and properly, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. Those things should not be confounded because of the way in which Brexit takes its course over the years to come. That is why we have to take care of these things now. It is not just the Taoiseach who raised this issue last summer; it is quite clear that the Joint Oireachtas Committee of the Doyle and the Seanad is also prioritising it, and I believe it will feature in one of the Committee’s reports.
I advise Ministers that amendment 86, and quite possibly new clause 150, will also be tabled in the House of Lords. They will be tabled by Lord Murphy—Paul Murphy who piloted the 1998 Act through this House. He also chaired the strand 1 negotiations. Everybody thinks George Mitchell chaired all the negotiations to do with the Good Friday agreement, but he did not chair strand 1, which included some of the most detailed negotiations. Paul Murphy chaired strand 1, and he represented the British Government for most of the time in the strand 2 negotiations as well. If someone of his experience and insight—both from that time and from the role he played as Secretary of State—can see the importance of this and the salient, crucial need to protect the agreement through something such as amendment 86 and new clause 150, who are people in this House to dismiss that point, that experience and that insight, as well as dismissing the clear wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
Finally, I want to address amendments 88 and 92, which make provision for any change to the legislative competence of the Assembly or to the executive competence of the Executive to require the assent of the Assembly. They address issues that found expression in the Supreme Court judgment. There has been a false shorthand around the Supreme Court judgment that has basically said that no aspect of Sewel can ever apply in any way, and that is not what the Supreme Court actually said. At paragraph 151, it said:
“we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures.”
The point is a simple one: if this House does not uphold this convention at this time on such an important change in the governance of Northern Ireland, what, then, is left of that convention?
We need to remember that the Good Friday agreement is based not just on the principle of consent but on the promise and the exercise of trust and reliable adherence. We have a situation now where this Parliament is not being seen to keep its side of what was assumed to be the bargain and the understanding in the compact  between all the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Ireland, and between the Governments of these islands. That is why we have tabled amendments 88 and 92.
On amendment 92, I want Members to understand that it is important that the Government indicate that they understand what new changes there will be to the competency of the Northern Ireland Assembly and when those will happen. If, as we are being told—this came up in exchanges between hon. Members from Wales—the great repeal Bill, when it comes, involves competencies over rights or environmental standards being held in some sort of holding pattern here before subsequently being devolved, that could do serious injury to rights protections and promises under the Good Friday agreement. If we have dilution of those rights or standards before devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be able to top them back up to the pre-existing EU standards without cross-community support, which will probably be denied courtesy of the DUP, just as it has abused and misused the parallel consent principles—the petition of concern—to block other rights. A mechanism that was meant to be there to protect rights has actually been used to frustrate rights. We have to make sure that in the journey of the transfer of powers and competences from Brussels to the UK, it is clearly a case of “Devolution, straight to devolution, do not pass Go, do not collect £200”, and that there is no dirty work at the crossroads in relation to diluting rights and standards. That is why these issues are being addressed.
That will be a key issue in strand 1 and it will become an issue in the negotiations that take place after the election. Those negotiations will touch on the petition of concern itself, but also the context that has been created by Brexit in terms of further powers that might be coming to the Assembly. Similarly, as the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said, the question of strand 2 will arise in the negotiations, because the Good Friday agreement made a commitment that there would be at least six implementation bodies, on a cross-border basis. The six that were created after the Good Friday agreement were, by the insistence of the Ulster Unionist party, which was the only Unionist party negotiating by that stage, all related to areas that dealt a lot with European funding or dealt with questions of common compliance with European standards. If we no longer have common European funding or the issues of common compliance, then the rationale for those existing bodies has gone and there will have to be six new bodies. That opens up a whole area of negotiation. It brings us essentially into a review of the Good Friday agreement.

Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that before there are any new bodies or any more reviews, the priority for the people of Northern Ireland should be to get a working Assembly and re-elect a working Executive to get on with running Northern Ireland, so that all these things can then be dealt with? Without that, there will be no more devolution of anything it seems.

Mark Durkan: Yes, and my party and I are fully pledged to doing that. Nobody worked harder to create the principles and the precepts of the agreement and to get those institutions established and up and running—and we did so, I have to tell the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), with very good assistance from the EU. As someone who was a Minister in  Northern Ireland—both a Finance Minister and a Deputy First Minister—I had many negotiations with many people in the EU, including Michel Barnier, who was very constructive and helpful in relation to a number of funding issues. Yes, he had his particularisms about which one had to be careful and understand where he was coming from, and certainly his officials had to understand where he was coming from, but it was a useful and constructive contribution—one of many—from the EU.

Tom Elliott: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if article 50 is triggered we will no longer have InterTradeIreland, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, and the six bodies that were set up by the Belfast agreement? I do not see any threat to them from triggering article 50.

Mark Durkan: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that said, “If we are going to go ahead and agree these implementation bodies, the cover has to be that the way in which we can show that they meet our test of mutual benefit is that they deal with matters that largely transpose EU business and involve questions of common compliance.” There is the Food Standards Agency, and Waterways Ireland and the Loughs Agency have some environmental compliance issues—and of course there is also the question of EU funding. As the hon. Member for St Helens North said, the role of the Special EU Programmes Body is not going to exist if no common EU funding is to be available any more.
If the rationale and justification for the existing bodies is wounded and weakened, then those of us who negotiated and supported the agreement have the right to say, “We’ve already had nearly 20 years of this limited area of implementation co-operation. It now needs to be developed and expanded as the agreement promised it could be.” If the existing bodies are wounded and winged by the fact of Brexit, if they limp along and struggle for relevance, then clearly there must be—in the context of a review at least of strand 2, if not the wider agreement—negotiations on new bodies. Those negotiations, as we know, will not find themselves unlinked to other issues and factors as well. Some hon. Members of this House have hummed to themselves that Brexit has no implications for the Good Friday agreement, and that as long as they say that they will consult Ministers and that they do not want border posts, no other damage has been done. They do not understand the politics that went into the agreement, and they do not understand the politics that will upset the workings of that agreement because of the implications of Brexit.
That is why if people have a care for the Good Friday agreement, they should have no problem with amendment 86. If people vote against amendment 86 on Wednesday, they will be voting against the idea that we can have the Good Friday agreement at the same time as pursuing Brexit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I have no power to impose time limits on Committee stage debates. A lot of Members wish to speak. Back-Bench contributions to this debate will have to end at 11.45 pm  to allow the Front Benchers any time at all to wind up. It is patently obvious that not all Members are going to get in. I urge extreme brevity, please.

Charlie Elphicke: It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Whenever he speaks, he gives us an interesting perspective on how politics is going in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that Sinn Féin might be doing slightly well at the moment.
We are talking about a matter that is important not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom, and I particularly want to address new clause 4. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) set out cogently the lack of consensus in respect of the devolved Administrations. The drafters and presenters of the new clause know very well that consensus is almost impossible to achieve, as the shadow Minister admitted.
Less focus has been given to subsection (1). The new clause would operate after article 50 has been triggered. The risk is that having triggered article 50, negotiated with the European Union and thought that we had a deal, the machinery might prevent us from closing that deal. The new clause might have the unintended consequence of making any deal hard to achieve, because it contains a whole mechanism for having two months before signing any agreements and needing to seek to achieve consensus before entering any agreements.
The best way forward is to have a clean Brexit with a clean Bill that simply puts article 50 through and lets the Government get on with it. The Government have already said that they are going to involve the House in what is happening and in the negotiations. It is a United Kingdom reserved matter and a United Kingdom decision, and it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, for this important negotiation and decision to be hamstrung by the risk that consensus could not be achieved.

Susan Elan Jones: We have already spoken about the validity of the devolved Administrations in issues relating to the European Union. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect the existence of the devolved Administrations, elected as they were by referendum? Does he not recognise that new clause 4 is a very moderate clause, and that consensus should be sought? Why are the Government seeking to oppose it?

Charlie Elphicke: Of course I respect the devolved Administrations. I respect the constituent nations of this country, I respect my constituents and I respect the fact that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. It is important that referendums that take place in this nation are respected. That goes for the Scottish nationalist party as well, which disrespects every single referendum.

Ian Blackford: rose—

Charlie Elphicke: I say to the hon. Gentleman before I give way to him that he should calm himself. He jumps up and down with such vigour that he will do himself harm.

Ian Blackford: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in Europe? If he respects the nation and the people of  Scotland, why do the Government that he supports not compromise with the Scottish people and the Scottish Government and allow us to achieve what we voted for, which is to remain in the single market?

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman should know that the biggest single market that Scotland is part of is the United Kingdom; that is its biggest single market. [Interruption.] Some Members are telling me to answer the question, so let us look at the record of the Scottish nationalists when it comes to referendums. In No. 1, the alternative vote referendum, they backed a yes vote and they lost. They will not respect that. In No. 2, they backed an independence referendum—they lost. They will not respect that either. In No. 3, they fought on the United Kingdom-wide referendum we have just had—it covered the United Kingdom that the people of Scotland voted to remain a part of—and they will not respect its outcome. Now, they are blustering that they will have another independence referendum, even though over half the people of Scotland say they do not want one, and although they know they will lose it by the same margin as they lost it last time.

Alex Salmond: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I think his memory is faulty on the AV referendum? It was on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011—understandably, we were concentrating on them—when the SNP won an overall majority under a proportional system.

Charlie Elphicke: The right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about the elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we are discussing the referendums of this country.

Michael Gove: On a point of order, Sir Roger. Immediately preceding the intervention by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), his neighbour the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) sought to intervene, but he moved to tell her to sit down so that he might intervene instead. Is such sexist behaviour in order in this Committee?

Roger Gale: Happily, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

Charlie Elphicke: I want to conclude my remarks by saying that it is high time the Labour party respected the fact that the people of Wales and the people of England voted to leave the European Union, it is high time that the Scottish National party respected a referendum—it has, despite the interesting explanation given by its former leader, disrespected three referendums—and it is high time that we have a clean Brexit with a clean Bill and that we send the Bill to the House of Lords unamended.

Seema Malhotra: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate about how we can engage more with the devolved Administrations and legislatures in relation to our future discussions and negotiations.
I want to speak to my new clause 168, which calls on the Government to establish a new national convention to advise Her Majesty’s Government on their priorities  during negotiations with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It calls on Ministers of the Crown to take into account the views of the national convention before signing any agreements with the European Commission on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I propose that the national convention should convene representatives from across different levels of Government, the regions—including, in case anybody has missed this, all the English regions—and various sectors to meet and produce a report recommending negotiating priorities that would better reflect the needs of the regions of the UK.

Rosie Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State for Brexit said there would be some kind of meeting in York, where the Government would bring together representatives of the regions. That was some time ago, and since then we have heard nothing about it. That would fit in completely with her idea of a national convention, so it would be helpful if the Minister put some flesh on the bones of what the Secretary of State was talking about.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, the lack of engagement with the regions has been highlighted in the work of the Exiting the European Union Committee.

Catherine McKinnell: The Secretary of State actually said that he would get
“the mayors of the north to come and have a meeting in York”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 802.]
That was a very vague statement. My concern is that it does not seem to provide any clarity about how the Government are going to engage with regions that will not have elected Mayors by May, such as the north-east. Indeed, such Mayors will be elected only in May, which will be far too late for these negotiations.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It comes down to how much the Government are really committed to and interested in hearing from differing voices across the country as we move forward. That is why I want the convention to include elected Mayors, representatives of civil society and local government, and MEPs—they have great expertise and experience—as well as representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra: I will make some progress first.
The national convention would include a wider set of voices, each with an important contribution to make to the debate, including universities and higher education representatives, business organisations, trade unions, trade bodies and other representatives of different sectors.
The referendum demonstrated the alienation that many people feel from politics as a whole. The result showed a nation split down the middle. Seven out of 10 18 to 24-year-olds voted remain, while two thirds of over-65s voted leave. Cities tended to vote remain, while small  towns and rural areas tended to vote leave. England and Wales voted leave, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted remain.

Anna Soubry: The hon. Lady says that Members of the European Parliament would sit in the national convention. Does that include Mr Nigel Farage?

Seema Malhotra: We need to have a way in which the expertise of our many long-standing Members of the European Parliament can be shared with the nation. I am not saying that I would have one or the other. What is important is that there is a continuing dialogue and that we engage the nations and the regions across the country in a far more diverse debate than we are currently having.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra: I will make some progress, because we have only a few moments left and other Members wish to speak.
Yesterday in my constituency, I held a roundtable with people who voted leave and those who voted remain, from people in their 20s to those in their 80s. It was a useful discussion that engaged people in the choices and dilemmas ahead. They said why they voted leave or remain. Their reasons included the commitment of £350 million for the NHS, housing and immigration, particularly opening up immigration from non-EU countries, including Commonwealth countries. Many felt that they did not understand the implications of Brexit, nor what the risks might be.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Seema Malhotra: I am afraid that we are running short of time.
People wanted more information and more debate. One person even asked me what article 50 was. The level of understanding is very low and it is vital that we continue to engage people. People had a vote in a referendum, but going forward there is no forum for people to understand and engage in the journey we are on.
The national convention that I propose would fill an important gap. It would give English cities and regions a voice alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a strong national conversation about where we go next. It would recognise and harness the expertise of our councillors and the vast experience and expertise of many other sectors and, yes, our MEPs.
Brexit will have different effects on different communities, sectors, regions and nations. The needs of farmers in Cornwall will be different from those of the nuclear industry in Cumbria, the media and tech sectors in Manchester, the financial services in Scotland and London, and car manufacturing in the north-east. Those differences should be shared and those needs should be understood in a public forum. In evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I sit, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted that not enough had yet been done on regional engagement.
Many of us were deeply disappointed with the quality of the referendum debate. The setting up of the national convention would inform and shape a mature national debate during the negotiation period and help unite the country. New clause 168 is an opportunity and a test for the Government. If they are serious about a Brexit that works for everyone, they should welcome this opportunity to take the discussion out of Whitehall and engage the country.

Sammy Wilson: Can the hon. Lady clear something up for me? She is proposing a national assembly, the purpose of which is to advise Her Majesty’s Government on their priorities, and its report would not be received, according to proposed new subsection (7), for 15 months. Is she saying that we wait 15 months—in which case she wants simply to delay—or is she saying that the report would come after the negotiations are over?

Seema Malhotra: Perhaps I can clear this up. The maximum time is to encourage engagement over the period of the negotiations, assuming that they last for two years. This is a process to engage the regions and nations far more effectively in a national conversation. If there is one thing that this debate and the referendum outcome have taught us, it is that people want to be listened to.

Joanna Cherry: I rise to speak in support of amendment 46, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but before that I would like to take the opportunity to thank Conservative Members who have spoken this evening for their quite extraordinary display of hubris and contempt towards amendments, laid by several different parties, that simply seek to make sure that the reality of the modern British constitution and devolved settlement is respected. Those of us who believe that Scotland would be better off managing its own affairs as an independent member of the EU will have received a huge boost this evening from their behaviour. It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I am sure he will forgive me if I say that I suspect that the cause of a united Ireland has also received a boost this evening. I very much hope so.
I will be brief so that others from my party might have a chance to speak. The purpose of amendment 46 is to require the Prime Minister to obtain the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly before she triggers article 50. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to correct the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and his woeful misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court did, and did not say, in relation to legislative consent motions. It said that, as currently framed in the Scotland Act, it is not legally enforceable. It did not say that it had no meaning whatsoever. The hon. Member for Foyle quoted paragraph 151 of the judgment, and I very much suggest that Conservative Members read the judgment, rather than simply taking from it what they want. It said:
“The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK parliament and the devolved legislatures. But the policing of its scope and the manner of its operation does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary”.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Joanna Cherry: I am not going to give way. I am going to—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I ask the hon. and learned Lady to take her seat. I have been very kind in bringing in the SNP, and I ask that she not take advantage of the time—[Interruption.] Order. I wanted to share the time, so I hope that she is coming to an end, so that we can get one more speaker in, as I promised I would do by allowing her to speak.

Joanna Cherry: The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to do what they said they would do when they introduced the Scotland Act, which was to make the Scottish Parliament the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and give it a say in a process that will fundamentally affect the rights of Scottish citizens and Scottish business. [Interruption.] I noted that Government Members were given as much time as they wanted to make their points, and I intend to take as much time, as is my right, to make my points.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that the hon. and learned Lady’s speech has come to an end. Let us now please hear from the Minister.

Robin Walker: Thank you, Mr Hoyle. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Salmond, you should know better. [Interruption.] Order. One second.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. It is clear that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) had not resumed her seat, Sir. Being in the Chair accords you many privileges, but you cannot reinterpret the wishes of an hon. Member who is on her feet.

Lindsay Hoyle: As the occupant of the Chair, I have the right to make decisions in this Committee. [Interruption.] Just a moment. I rightly wanted to bring in the hon. and learned Lady, which I did. When the SNP Whip comes and asks me to give a couple of minutes to ensure that the SNP has another voice, which I did, I certainly do not expect advantages to be taken of the Chair on the agreement that I met. That is the issue. Sit down.

Robin Walker: Thank you for your chairing of this debate, Mr Hoyle. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Calm down, Mr Wishart. This is a very serious matter. It is so serious that I want to hear what the Minister has to say in response to where we are. It is very serious and I want to hear it.

Robin Walker: This is a hugely important debate. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Salmond, will you clarify something for me?

Alex Salmond: Other Members have been making their contributions without any admonition from the Chair.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Tempers are running quite high. We need to calm it down. In fairness, I have been very generous in coming into the Chair—[Interruption.] Mr Wishart, we do not need any extra help for the moment. Let me say that I want to hear, and Mr Salmond would expect to hear, what the Minister has to say in response to the opening speeches. I believe Mr Salmond would have wanted answers. The fact is that this Committee wants to hear what the Minister has to say. The last thing I wanted to do was to take up time dealing with points of order. In the end, if we do that, we will not hear from the Minister. I understand that you, Mr Salmond, may have used some unparliamentary language to me, but I am sure that you are not that kind of person and I am sure you did not do so.

Alex Salmond: I did not.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am saying that I am sure that was not the case. I did not accuse you; far from it. Let us now get the Minister on his feet.

Robin Walker: Thank you, Mr Hoyle.
We have heard from all four corners of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Everyone who has spoken in the debate agrees on the importance of engaging closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures as we embark on the forthcoming negotiations.

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I have to say that I have great respect for you as the Chairman, but I hope you can understand the frustration that we all feel that only two SNP Members have been called to speak in this debate, which is important for the future of Scotland and our position within Europe. I am asking what you can do, Mr Hoyle, to make sure that the voice of the people of Scotland is heard correctly in this debate. It has not been heard this evening.

Lindsay Hoyle: I assumed my place in the Chair, and I have tried to ensure that a second SNP voice was heard, and we were listening to that. That is what I agreed to, and that is what I have done. In fairness, I think the SNP has done better than it was going to otherwise, in which case, let us hear what the Minister has to say.

Robin Walker: Engaging with the devolved Administrations and discussing their priorities is exactly what the Joint Ministerial Council on EU Negotiations was set up for. It brings together the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to discuss each Government’s requirement for the future relationship with the EU, and to seek a UK approach to and objectives for article 50 negotiations.
I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) presented the new clause, and I recognise her and her party’s dedication to the Union. However, the JMC is not a legislative or statutory body, and it would not be appropriate to change that in the way new clause 4 proposes. I say that not only for the reasons given by my right hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for  Dover (Charlie Elphicke), but because it provides a neutral forum for confidential discussions, which this new clause would undermine.
When it comes to the new clauses and amendments, we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that we get the best deal for every part of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, England—as well as for the UK as a whole.

Ian Murray: rose—

Robin Walker: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I can give way only once.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that the Minister has been able to give way. I wonder whether he and other Ministers will take it on board that Members who tabled amendments in all good faith have not even been able to speak to them because of the programme motion tabled by the Government. The Government have been forced kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to the Chamber to present the Bill. It is about time that they thought again, and gave us more time for debate

Robin Walker: The House voted for a programme motion, and that programme motion has been followed by the Chair.
We have not yet made final decisions about the format for direct negotiations with the European Union. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, representing the interests of the whole United Kingdom. Moreover, it is important to recognise that there are two sides to the negotiation, and we cannot say for certain how our side will progress until we know how the EU side will approach it. In the context of amendments 46, 55 and 88 and new clause 140, it is important to note that Supreme Court ruled—I quote from the summary—
“Relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and parliament, not to the devolved institutions.”
The summary went on to state:
“The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU”.
While that provides welcome legal clarity, it in no way diminishes our commitment to working closely with the people and the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move towards our withdrawal from the European Union.
I have made it clear that the Government will negotiate on the right approach for the whole United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who made a passionate speech, and to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). They made important points about the significance of the Belfast agreement and its successors. I must emphasise to them that the position of the UK Government remains unchanged. Our absolute commitment to those matters is reflected in our White Paper, which mentions the Ireland Act 1949, as well as a commitment to the common travel area and our bilateral relations with the Republic of Ireland. While I accept all the points that the hon. Member for St Helens North made so well  about the importance of respecting those agreements, I can assure him that the Government respect them, and I do not think that his new clauses are necessary.
We have heard a range of suggestions from Members on both sides of the House about how to engage the devolved Administrations and, indeed, every part of our United Kingdom. The Government will continue to do that through the JMC process, which is firmly established and which functions on the basis of agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Assemblies. We have also heard suggestions for huge constitutional reforms which are beyond the scope of the Bill. New clause 168 proposes that the Government establish a national convention on exiting the European Union. Amendment 91 requires a duty to consult representatives at every level of government, regions and the sectors.
I have already spoken about the role of the JMC, and Ministers throughout the Government are organising hundreds of meetings, visits and events involving businesses in more than 50 sectors across the United Kingdom. They are consulting a number of representatives, including the Mayor of London, who is mentioned in some of the amendments. New clause 168 would get in the way of those established processes, and the idea of a national convention would cause unacceptable delay to a timetable that the House has clearly supported.
We are committed to engaging closely with the devolved Administrations and all parts of the country to secure a deal that is in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom. However, as the Supreme Court ruled, relations with the EU are not a devolved matter, and no part of the UK is entitled to a veto. I urge Members not to press their new clauses and amendments, so that the Bill can make progress in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Jenny Chapman: The Minister opened his remarks by saying that the JMC was not on a statutory footing. That is precisely the point of our new clause. He has given us warm words and platitudes about his respect for the devolved Administrations, but I am afraid they are not enough, and we will press the new clause to a Division.

Ian Murray: Given that we have not reached the moment of interruption, Mr Hoyle, may I move new clauses 23 and 24 and amendment 8, which stand in my name?

Lindsay Hoyle: Unfortunately not.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 276, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.
More than seven hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 1 February).
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
New Clause 26

Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation

“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.”.—(Ms Ahmed-Sheikh.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 62, Noes 333.

Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 158

Continued levels of EU funding for Wales

“Before the Prime Minister exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.”—(Jonathan Edwards.)
This new clause would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 267, Noes 330.

Question accordingly negatived.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 1 February).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Trade Unions

That the draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.—(Heather Wheeler.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 8 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
That the draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.—(Heather Wheeler.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 8 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
That the draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 5 December 2016, be approved.—(Heather Wheeler.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 8 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft National Health Service Commissioning Board (Additional Functions) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 9 January, be approved.—(Heather Wheeler.)
Question agreed to.

European scrutiny committee

Ordered,
That Dr Paul Monaghan be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Chris Stephens be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Finance Committee

Ordered,
That Kwasi Kwarteng be discharged from the Finance Committee and William Wragg be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

High Speed 2: Yorkshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Heather Wheeler.)

Ed Miliband: I am grateful, even at this late—or should I say early—hour, to discuss the very important decisions to be made about HS2 and its route through Yorkshire, and particularly South Yorkshire. What this debate loses by the hour at which it occurs, it gains from the quality of the Members who are present.

Jon Trickett: On this side.

Ed Miliband: On both sides of the House.
I am grateful to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the debate, and particularly to my right hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and indeed all my hon. Friends.
I want to make it clear right at the outset that I have always supported the principle of HS2, and I still do. But the whole reason for it must be to seek to do something about the deep inequalities our country faces, and my colleagues and I fear that that will not be the outcome of the decisions currently being advocated. We have called this debate because HS2, having supported the Sheffield Meadowhall route year after year, has changed its mind and is now recommending what is called the M18 route through my constituency, with a spur to Sheffield Midland. In my remarks, I want to take on the issue of whether that makes sense. I do not believe it does make sense in terms of maximising the economic benefits of HS2 or tackling the deep inequalities in our country, connectivity and value for money. I hope the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, will be as fair minded as we have been in listening to the arguments that have been made.
There are five arguments that HS2 is making. The first is around what it calls the conflicting demands of the region. In considering this issue, it is worth remembering why Meadowhall was originally chosen—it was because of its excellent connections to the rest of the region, with a journey time to London of 68 minutes and five trains an hour. This is what Sir David Higgins himself said in October 2014 about the alternative option, which he now recommends. HS2 examined
“a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station. While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey times necessary to serve the wider Sheffield city region effectively, particularly Rotherham and Barnsley.”
I could not have put it better myself. He went on to say that this approach would not deliver
“an equitable approach across the North or meet the vision of a truly high speed network for the country.”
So HS2 is currently recommending an approach it describes as worse for equity, connectivity, capacity and journey times.
Given all that, Members might think that the M18 option was better for Sheffield city centre. My colleagues from Sheffield will obviously take their own view on that, but I contend that that is not the case. Why do I say that? The so-called city centre option that is now being recommended actually means slower journey times from London to Sheffield city centre than the previous Meadowhall option. The House should not take my word for it; it should listen to HS2’s own figures.
According to HS2, the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time into Sheffield Midland from London of 79 minutes, even with a change of trains. The time on the new route is somewhere between 85 and 87 minutes, and could actually be longer. Not only that, but there would have been five trains an hour—now there will be a maximum of two. The trains will be half the length of HS2 trains, and they will not be on the HS2 track; they will be what HS2 euphemistically calls “classic” track—I think that means the old track, which is subject to all the delays and problems that exist. I believe that Sheffield and South Yorkshire are being sold a pup on this route. That is true whether we look at the economic benefit or the passenger numbers; on all the issues that matter, the benefits of Sheffield Meadowhall are much greater than those of the Midland option.
The second argument HS2 makes is around city centre connectivity—the need to go from Leeds city centre to Sheffield city centre, for example. When I have asked HS2 about this, it has said, “Well, Transport for the North”—hon. Members will know about that organisation—“has really changed our thinking on this.” So last week I rang up the head of Transport for the North, David Brown, who was bemused, to say the least, to hear that he had driven this change. He told me that he certainly had not expressed a view about which option was better. He actually said that it was disingenuous to claim that he had driven this change. That is not surprising, because the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time from Leeds city centre into Sheffield city centre of 27 minutes, which is under the half an hour that is the ambition that Transport for the North has for this city centre connectivity.
There is an even more serious problem with the Sheffield Midland option that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has exposed with persistent questioning—whether there is the engineering capacity at Sheffield Midland to meet the ambitions of Transport for the North for up to 20 trains an hour. There are real doubts about this. I would like the Minister to tell us—because I have asked HS2 and it has not given a straight answer—what the engineering constraints are at Sheffield Midland. Currently two trains an hour are being proposed, and there is the potential for two more if other links are built.
The third argument that HS2 makes is about demand. This basically says that there is not the demand in South Yorkshire that justifies the five trains an hour that would have run to Meadowhall, so instead there will be up to two trains an hour, which could of course be one or two—and we have to remember that they are half the size of the old HS2 trains. I think that this is the same as the defeatism that the proponents of HS2 often accuse its critics of. In other words, it is saying, “This kind of economic intervention isn’t going to make a big difference so we are talking about one fifth of the capacity of the  original Meadowhall proposal.” That is defeatist and wrong. It is downgrading South Yorkshire, and that is the wrong thing to do.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the capacity of Sheffield Midland station, particularly if we want to increase the number of trains to Manchester, for example. There is an additional problem that he might like to mention, which is that the electrification of the midland main line is not going to go ahead in the mainstream programme, and there is no money in anybody’s budget to fund this, as I understand it.

Ed Miliband: That is an incredibly important point. I will come on to the vexed question of costs, because that will obviously be a concern of the Minister, and I understand the reasons for that.
HS2’s fourth argument is about what it calls local constraints—that is, the urban industrial density and the environmental challenges of the Meadowhall route. However, HS2 itself admits in its most recent document that what it calls the constructability issues at Meadowhall can be overcome, and, as I have said, the engineering challenges of the city centre are completely unanswered.

Karl McCartney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the woefully inadequate evidence that HS2 gave to the Transport Committee when it was called to give evidence? It was questioned quite closely in its witness statements on this particular issue and did not give any semblance of a proper answer.

Ed Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I noticed the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) nodding from a sedentary position; I know that he raised this issue in the Transport Committee as well. It is also something that my constituents have raised with me.
The other thing I would say about the challenges and constraints is that we are not comparing like with like. We are comparing three or four years of work on the Meadowhall route with, frankly, back-of-a-fag packet calculations in relation to the M18 route. Already, my constituents with houses that are going to need to be demolished have not had letters saying that their houses would need to be demolished. There is a whole range of issues. A whole new housing estate, the Shimmer estate in Mexborough in my constituency, is threatened with demolition. Some of the most distinctive countryside around villages in my constituency such as Hickleton, Barnburgh, Clayton and Hooton Pagnell is under threat. Our argument is not simply about the local effect—it is a wider argument about the benefits to South Yorkshire. However, I do think that that is relevant, and proper work has not been done on the constraints of this route.

Cheryl Gillan: As somebody who has opposed HS2 right from the beginning, I have a great deal of sympathy with the case the right hon. Gentleman is making. Although I do not want to intervene on the merits of the M18 route or Meadowhall, does he agree that there is a serious problem with the governance of HS2 Ltd? It has had five Secretaries of State, four permanent secretaries and three chief executives. Now, even the former permanent secretary  to the Treasury, Lord Macpherson, has said that HS2 is not good value for money for the taxpayer and the money could be better spent on other road and rail projects that would benefit Yorkshire and the rest of the country.

Ed Miliband: The right hon. Lady has a long track record of campaigning on this issue. Although she and I may differ on the principle around HS2—I support it—the point that she makes about its inconsistency of approach is deeply troubling. It was recommending the Meadowhall route not just in October 2014 but, as we discovered thanks to FOI, in late 2015 and as late as February 2016. I was going to call this debate—partly in order to attract more people to it—“The mystery of HS2 in Yorkshire”, because it is a mystery to me what changed. In February, HS2 was saying that Meadowhall was the right option. By April or May, the previous Secretary of State was walking around my constituency looking at the other route.

Kevin Barron: I spoke to David Higgins in July last year when this occurred, and he said that there was no consensus for Sheffield Meadowhall. It is quite clear to me the damage that the M18 route will do to three villages in my constituency. If M18 goes ahead, the sub-regional economy of South Yorkshire will lose out massively on the benefit and the jobs that HS2 said two years ago would result from Meadowhall going ahead. It is inconceivable, in my view, that that should not happen, and it has not been written off.

Ed Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will be open-minded. Although the Secretary of State has said that he is minded to go ahead with the M18 route, he has kept the Meadowhall option open.
I come now to the issue of cost. HS2 has been careful to say that the claimed £1 billion of savings is not the motivation for the route change, but I totally understand why the Minister and the Secretary of State would care about the cost. Unfortunately, it turns out that the claimed savings are simply illusory. This £1 billion of so-called savings excludes a whole number of costs. It excludes the electrification of the northern loop to Leeds, which will cost £300 million and which is essential for any link to Leeds, because it is not built into the plan. It excludes the cost of a parkway station, which HS2 is suggesting could cost somewhere between £200 million and £300 million; that is not in the plan. It excludes any re-engineering of Sheffield Midland; that is not in the plan. It excludes potential electrification of the Sheffield line; that is not in the plan. It excludes the optimism bias that the NAO called the Government out on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), in her role on the Public Accounts Committee, has been assiduous in looking at these issues. When we look at the so-called £1 billion of savings, we found that it disappeared. I ask the Minister to come back to me on that if he disagrees.
That is half the problem, but there is another half to the problem. The Government and HS2 have been talking about the capital costs of the project, but when we look at the fine print, we might wonder why they have not been talking about the operating costs. There is a very good reason why they have not done so. The operating  costs of the M18 route—this comes from the Government’s own figures—are a staggering £1.7 billion higher than those of the Meadowhall route. Not only do the savings disappear, but the route turns out to be more expensive by £1 billion or more over the lifetime of the project. I hope that one thing that we can establish today is that the Minister and HS2 really should stop saying that the route saves money, because it does not. It does not save money when we look at the capital costs, and it certainly does not save money when we throw in the operating costs as well.
When I go through the arguments about the benefits to South Yorkshire and look at whether we believe this economic intervention will help South Yorkshire and do so properly—there are issues of connectivity, demand, local constraints and costs—I am afraid that I do not believe the M18 route adds up. Some people have said that the problems can be solved by having a parkway station on the M18 route—for example, in a village or town in the Dearne valley—but I do not believe that. An afterthought parkway station will provide a maximum of one or two trains an hour, not five. It would be likely to have all the same connection problems as the city centre option, and it raises the most profound infrastructure challenges.

Andrew Bridgen: HS2 adversely affects my constituency, and I have always voted against it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that HS2 is now so desperately over budget and so desperate to make savings that we have ended up with a railway that does not connect with HS1 or Heathrow, and goes from nearly London to nearly Birmingham? I am not surprised that it is not delivering what he expected for Doncaster.

Ed Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand that Governments will always want to look for savings, but I do not believe there will be any savings.
The final argument I want to address is consensus. The Minister and I have discussed the issue, and I know he is concerned about it. One explanation HS2 has offered is that there was no consensus for the Meadowhall route. That was true because Meadowhall was advocated by Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham, while Sheffield advocated the Victoria option. However, I really hope the Minister hears today that if there was no consensus for Meadowhall, there is far less support for the M18 route. I believe that this is now an idea without allies. It is not supported in Doncaster, Barnsley or Rotherham, and many people in Sheffield have growing doubts. Indeed, I think Sheffield has been sold a pup by HS2.
Last of all, I say to the Minister that the Secretary of State has said he is minded to adopt the M18 proposal, but has not closed the door on Meadowhall. Whatever the reasons for this bad recommendation, I want the Minister to listen to what he is hearing—the facts and the evidence—and not sell South Yorkshire down the river. I want HS2 to work for South Yorkshire, but the M18 route does not work. The answer, in my view, should be to return to the original Meadowhall route, by all means with better connections to the centre of Sheffield. If reason and rationality matter, the M18 route cannot go ahead; if making our country more equal matters, the M18 route should not go ahead; and  if the views of the people of South Yorkshire matter, it cannot go ahead. I hope and trust that the Minister and his Secretary of State will listen and act when the time comes.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this debate. I think HS2 is a very exciting project, and I am grateful to him for his overall support in principle, but we obviously have issues to resolve in South Yorkshire.
HS2 is long overdue for our national rail system. It will provide the capacity for our congested railways, improve connections between our biggest cities and regions, and it will generate the jobs, skills and economic growth that will help us to build an economy that works for all. A key part of that is closing the geographical, sector and skills gaps in our country, and not leaving people behind.
By providing new fast lines for inter-city services, HS2 will free up space on our existing railways for more services, including more regional services for commuters and more freight services. It will create better connections and more seats for passengers overall. Even people who never travel by train stand to benefit from fewer lorries on the roads, and from the thousands of local jobs and apprenticeships that will be created by HS2. It will create opportunities for skills and employment, and it will promote UK leadership and expertise in construction and engineering. We are looking at 2,000 new apprenticeships, 25,000 private sector jobs to build the railway and 3,000 jobs to operate it. Over 70% of the new jobs created directly by HS2 are outside London.

Toby Perkins: I think we all support the principle, but we want to talk about this particular route. From the perspective of Chesterfield, may I tell the Minister that we were actually quite pleased with the change, because it brings in the whole north Derbyshire area, and up to about 400,000 people? Whatever comes out of this, can we make sure that Chesterfield is served either by the route he is now proposing, or by the route to the east of Chesterfield?

Andrew Jones: The hon. Gentleman’s very interesting point highlights the dilemma we are facing in South Yorkshire and the surrounding area, but I think the benefits will be significant.
Let me get into the detail. I am still asked every day whether this scheme will happen. Of course it will happen. The Bill went through on its Third Reading in the House only last week, with the biggest majority in a Division since this Parliament voted to join the European Community, as it then was, almost 50 years ago. That is quite an interesting point to note. [Interruption.] I think it is very interesting. The point is that the scheme is going to happen. The question now is how we maximise the benefits when it arrives in our communities.
All sorts of problems will clearly arise from part of the proposed phase 2 route through South Yorkshire. I agree with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North that the concerns of residents in South Yorkshire are very important, just like the views of residents along the  entire line of route. That is why HS2 has engaged closely and continues to engage with affected residents, including the people of Yorkshire, to understand and address their concerns.
The current phase 2b route refinement and property consultation is addressing the issues raised by residents directly, including the location of depots, where to build tunnels and viaducts, the height of infrastructure, and property impacts. The consultation exercise closes on 9 March, so this is a live, ongoing consultation and I can only talk about the proposals. A significant number of events are being held.

Kevin Barron: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Jones: We will run out of time pretty shortly.

Kevin Barron: I will be very brief. HS2 has said that there are nine areas where there could be a parkway station, but today I have heard that it could be two areas. Why is that not out for consultation as well?

Andrew Jones: HS2 is still working on the proposals. It will provide its recommendations to us when it has done the assessment in April and May of this year, so there is nothing yet to consult upon.
There are 30 information events along the line of route on the current proposals. This is a genuine consultation and we are listening. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we are listening and we are. The way in which changes have been made in response to previous consultations shows that the process is open and by no means finished.
In response to concerns raised by the local community in Crofton, HS2 Ltd has identified options for alternative locations for the proposed New Crofton depot, some of which the Secretary of State could consider in his response to the route refinement consultation.
The entire HS2 programme has benefited from close engagement with communities, businesses, local authorities and passengers. The engagement events have been extremely well attended, so we are listening. We are working closely with local authorities and stakeholders along the line of route to find the best solutions.
After listening to consultation responses and considering alternatives to the proposed viaduct in the Aire and Calder area, we changed the route to pass under Woodlesford in a tunnel. In Leeds, we moved the location of the HS2 station 500 metres to the north to create a major transport hub with a single concourse. Again, we are listening. The point is that people in Leeds came together to suggest a solution. It would be great if that were possible in the Sheffield city region, so that the region spoke with one voice to the Government and decided where the station should be.

Jason McCartney: What needs to happen to get the Meadowhall option back on the table? That is on the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line that goes through my constituency, so it has the added benefit of connectivity to Huddersfield and the surrounding towns.

Andrew Jones: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point about connectivity and the services that would benefit his constituency.
Let me get into the points that have been made. We know that we have to get the decision on the M18 route refinement and the Meadowhall options right. This is more than a Government-led proposal; it requires collaboration from regional and local stakeholders.
The original 2013 consultation proposed serving South Yorkshire with a route along the Rother valley and an HS2 station at Meadowhall, about 6 km from Sheffield city centre. Since 2013, opinion among local people about the best location for the station has remained divided and no consensus has been reached. Indeed, it does not look like a consensus will be reached. That has made the decision about how HS2 can best serve the region very challenging, and the factors around the decision are finely balanced. In addition, there have been new developments since that time, including the northern powerhouse rail aspiration for fast and frequent services between city centres.
In the light of those developments and the feedback received in response to the 2013 consultation, HS2 Ltd continued to consider a range of options for how HS2 could best serve South Yorkshire while maintaining the integrity of the service to the larger markets of Leeds, York and Newcastle.
As part of the changes, Sir David Higgins recommended that a 9.4 km southern spur at Stonebroom be built off the HS2 main line, enabling HS2 trains to run directly into Sheffield city centre along the main network, and that the main north-south route follows a more easterly alignment over some 70 km between Derbyshire and west Yorkshire.

Clive Betts: From whose budget will the cost of electrification of the HS2 main line into Sheffield Midland station come?

Andrew Jones: We are still working up the proposals for northern powerhouse rail, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are looking at that all the time.
Building a northern connection would result in Sheffield being served by a loop rather than a spur, enabling services stopping at Sheffield Midland to continue on to destinations further north, and this connection could allow journeys between Sheffield and Leeds of 25 minutes —well within the northern powerhouse rail ambition of 30 minutes. The proposed M18 route has additional benefits, in that it affects fewer properties, generates less noise pollution than the Meadowhall alternative, is less congested, and avoids businesses and the risk from the mining legacy. I can see many attractions to a city centre location such as Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester.
On the parkway station recommendation, the Government have commissioned HS2 Ltd to conduct an options study that will review rail demand in the  South Yorkshire region, and alternative options for meeting that demand, including the parkway station, as well as potential service extensions to places beyond Sheffield Midland, such as Meadowhall, Rotherham and Barnsley. That work is under way. We look forward to the results in the spring. Alongside the route refinement and property consultation, the study will be used to inform a decision on HS2 in South Yorkshire later this year.
I agree with everybody here that we want to secure the benefits of HS2 in South Yorkshire and right across our country. It will be a major challenge to get the scheme right for South Yorkshire, but already we can see some benefits, including funding to help with the development of a growth strategy. The region can start to benefit from HS2 even before it is built, through long-term plans for regeneration. Several contracts have been let, and further major contracts worth up to £11.8 billion for civil engineering work between London and Birmingham are expected to be let this year.
HS2 is going ahead. The programme is moving at pace. The question is how to minimise the disruption during the build and, most importantly, maximise the benefits when HS2 arrives. I want people to be thinking about that, including in South Yorkshire. I have met colleagues from South Yorkshire, and I will meet them again—I think that dates are already in the diary; I am happy to receive all representations. I think that we can take this debate as part of the consultation exercise, and I hope that we can achieve a consensus around the proposal in South Yorkshire.

Ed Miliband: Will the Minister answer a simple question: is Meadowhall still on the table?

Andrew Jones: Yes. We have not ruled options out, although the Government have said that they are minded—but only minded—to go ahead with the proposal from Sir David Higgins. HS2 Ltd has run the largest public consultation in British Government history. We have sought to listen to communities and to take on board their comments and concerns at every stage, and that will continue, but HS2 is not just about improving transport; it is about exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said—building a better Britain and creating a legacy of prosperity for future generations. That especially applies in Yorkshire, which stands to benefit enormously from the new line, which is why I, as a Yorkshire MP, am proud to be part of this fantastic scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.